Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

North West Region Strategic Plan

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had, and with which organisations, on the Strategic Plan for the North West.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I invited all local authorities in the North West Region, the regional economic planning council and a large number of other organisations to let my Department have written observations on the strategic plan. These are now being considered. The invitation included an offer of discussion with my officers, and three local authorities affected by the plan and two other organisations have availed themselves of the opportunity. With permission, I will circulate the names in the Official Report.

Mr. Evans: Will my hon. Friend accept that no meaningful discussions have taken place with any of the important authorities about the Strategic Plan for the North West? More important, will he ask the Secretary of State to ensure that at the very least the House debates the many serious problems facing the North West Region before assemblies are established for Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Oakes: On the first part of the supplementary question, I can assure my hon. Friend that every opportunity has been given to the authorities to submit their written representations. I cannot give him a categorical assurance, but I would not expect an early announcement on devolution in England. In the mean-

time my right hon. Friend the Lord President has already said that he will see what he can do about a debate on the strategic plan. That is a matter for him.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the Minister accept congratulations from the Opposition side of the House to those who were concerned in preparing the plan—the team, the councillors and the organisations? They have given us a valuable document for discussion. Will
the hon. Gentleman undertake to report to the House in some form the comments he receives from organisations so that we may have a reasonable basis for debating the plan in the House?

Mr. Oakes: I endorse everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about those who have produced the plan. I will see what can be done to meet his suggestion, because we want the fullest possible discussion before my right hon. Friend announces his decision in the summer.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the plan contains many interesting and sound proposals, its title is misleading in that the observations in the report are concentrated on a very narrow band of Lancashire and it does not apply to the North West generally?

Mr. Oakes: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about some aspects of the strategic plan. I hope that he and his authorities have submitted their observations, which will be considered.

Mr. Clegg: There is considerable concern in the area of the Central Lancashire New Town and in North-East and North Lancashire about the proposed axis of development between Manchester and Merseyside. Will this be looked at carefully before any final decisions are made?

Mr. Oakes: Yes. The plan submitted to us is a basis of discussion at the present time and all representations from the whole of the North West will certainly be considered by my right hon. Friend.

Following are the names:

Fylde Borough Council.
West Lancashire District Council.


Cumbria County Council (including representatives from Barrow-in-Furness and South Lakeland District Councils).
Merseyside Council for Voluntary Service.
TUC Regional Committee (North West).

London Rail Study

Mr. Berry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take with regard to the London Rail Study—the Barran Report—and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach conclusions concerning the London Rail Study.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): Much of the report is given over to establishing a sound basis for future decisions rather than to recommending particular courses of action. All the specific recommendations are in the first instance for consideration by the Greater London Council and the two rail operators. We are willing to consider any firm proposals they may put to us in the light of the report.

Mr. Berry: Does not the Minister agree that one of the most urgent problems facing London is a decision about Dockland development, an ingredient of which must be the building of the River Line? Since the decision should be taken soon, ought it not to be done while the team which is constructing the Fleet Line is still intact so that it could then, having finished one job, move reasonably quickly to the other?

Mr. Carmichael: The second stage of the Fleet Line is not in itself of a high priority. It assumes a high priority only when it is considered in conjunction with the River Line and the line down to Thamesmead. As for Dockland, while I agree that the Fleet Line and the River Line are very important in that connection, a complication arises between transport planning and land use planning, so that both have to be done together.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the importance of the River Line, the most important aspect is to provide transport for the people who already live in the area? For example, the interchange at West

Ham between the District Line and the Eastern Region has been long overdue. It would cost very little to construct and it might be done very soon. Does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea to have a co-ordinating committee to knock together the heads of British Rail and London Transport?

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a proposition for a rail advisory committee in London, and this is being considered by the GLC. The question of the interchange was dealt with in an Adjournment debate and I think that I have also written to my hon. Friend about the matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsherg: Does the Minister recognise that if we wait for the end of the discussions between the GLC and the boroughs, which will go on interminably, this valuable study will not come to anything? Will he concentrate their minds by saying that his Department would like an answer within, say, six months?

Mr. Carmichael: Obviously we should like an answer as quickly as possible, but vast sums of money are involved and important strategic decisions require to be made. The Department has made it clear to the GLC and the rail operators that any proposals they put forward will be considered with alacrity.

M27, Southampton (Traffic Noise)

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will make a final decision as to which Southampton dwellings will be eligible for insulation against traffic noise from the M27.

Mr. Carmichael: As soon as possible and in any case within the time limits laid down in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973.

Mr. Gould: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nursling link for the M27 is scheduled for completion in the autumn of this year, and that therefore there is an urgent need for action if many Southampton dwellings are not to be subjected to an intolerable level of noise? Does he accept that while there may be doubt in some borderline cases there is a large category of dwellings which, on any reasonable assumption about noise levels,


must qualify for help? Will he take immediate action to provide that help?

Mr. Carmichael: The Department seriously considers questions of noise level, but it is important that contracts should be let in reasonable numbers so that reasonable prices can be obtained. My hon. Friend says that certain areas will obviously require insulation, but when one looks at a noise map one sometimes finds that they are not quite as obvious as might have been thought. Noise is a funny thing and it has peculiar side effects. Sometimes an area that one would have imagined obviously needed insulation turns out not to need it.

Scotland (Departmental Responsibilities)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his departmental responsibilities in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): My Department is responsible in Scotland for commercial ports; railways; road freight; licensing and testing of road vehicles, and regulations on their construction and use; driving tests; sponsorship of the construction industry; the provision—by the Property Services Agency—of accommodation and related services for Government Departments, and the management of defence lands.

Mr. Dalyell: What benefit would accrue in terms of efficiency and to the Scottish taxpayer if those functions were hived off to a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Crosland: That is not for me, as an Englishman, to pronounce upon. The few functions that my Department exercises in Scotland are all matters that it has been thought convenient and efficient to administer on a Great Britain basis. But all these matters are subject to the most intensive study at present.

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the Minister's responsibility for defence lands in Scotland, will he explain why, although it has been announced that live firing will not continue in the Pentland hills, his Department has also announced that it will be many years before it is possible to make that decision take effect so that the public may use the hills?

Mr. Crosland: I agree that all sorts of live firing go on in all sorts of places. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that, I shall be happy to answer it.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: If the right hon. Gentleman is with his Government colleagues in supporting the principle of devolution, may I ask him a simple question? Why has he not already devolved to the Scottish Office the greatest number of the items on the list he has given? What is his time scale for doing so?

Mr. Dalyell: The Scottish people will have to pay for all our railways.

Mr. Crosland: The Scottish Office already exercises by far the greater number of, and by far the most important, functions of the Deparment of the Environment in Scotland. The remaining functions are under active study as part of the whole devolution study. As to the timetable, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Lord President said in the debate on the subject about a fortnight ago.

Mr. John Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if there is a strong case for hiving off to an elected Scottish Assembly the activities he has just outlened, there is an equally strong case for them to be hived off to an elected North-West regional assembly?

Mr. Crosland: That is an extremely interesting point, which has been much discussed.

Planning Procedures (Dobry Report)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Seccretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Dobry Report on planning procedures.

Mr. Oakes: The report was published on 18th February.

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to the Minister, who sent me a copy of the report. Does he agree with the report that planning applications should be divided into two classes, the relatively simple and the most complex? Shall we have an early debate on the report?

Mr. Oakes: The report is subject to a great deal of consultation. We have


written to over 70 representative bodies to consider the recommendations. I can give no undertaking about a debate, but I shall put the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend note that many of us on the Government side would also welcome a debate on the report, and that the whole matter must be seen in the light of the Government's own proposals in regard to land?

Mr. Oakes: I agree. I note my hon. Friend's point about a debate, but pressure on parliamentary time is considerable.

Mr. Raison: Is the Minister aware that we on the Opposition benches broadly welcome the report but that we reinforce the plea for an early debate on this important matter? Will he say something about the cost of implementing the report, in view of the great need not to impose additional financial burdens on local government?

Mr. Oakes: One of the original reasons for the report was to see whether the planning process could be speeded up and the cost reduced. I note that the hon. Gentleman's point about a debate, and I repeat that I shall see whether it is possible to debate this important report.

Mr. Cant: As the chairman of a planning committee, may I ask whether, as we are talking about a consensus report which has already involved considerable discussion, my hon. Friend will issue a circular next week stating that local planning departments should carry out those items which do not require extra staff? Does he agree that otherwise this report, like the Borner Report on local valuers, will gather dust in the pigeonholes?

Mr. Oakes: I cannot give an undertaking that a circular will be issued next week. Mr. Dobry consulted widely during the preparation of the report, but not on the report itself, and a number of its recommendations need assessment in relation to one another before any circular can be issued by the Department.

Local Authority Expenditure

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he

will issue a further circular to local authorities requesting them to curb unnecessary expenditure in the interests of domestic ratepayers.

Mr. Oakes: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the circular already issued on 23rd December 1974 contains sufficient guidance.

Mr. Durant: That is an unsatisfactory answer. Is the Minister aware of the growing anger of ratepayers? They are not impressed by the general complacency about the subject. Should there not be another circular immediately to monitor capital expenditure in particular? Paragraph 6 of the Minister's Circular 171/74 is rather disappointing on that matter.

Mr. Oakes: I am aware of ratepayers' concern. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman talks about complacency. I have been throughout the country talking to local authorities about the circular, urging restraint and urging that their expenditure be kept to inescapable commitments. Most authorities are obeying that request. The Government have expressed concern about the rates. But I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House of the unprecedentedly high rate support grant approved by the House in December.

Mr. Grocott: If further particulars are to be sent round the country urging thrift and good husbandry, will my hon. Friend take note, as I know he and my right hon. Friend have done in the past, of those local authorities which are squandering the assets of their towns, many of them authorities with large housing waiting lists, by selling off council houses as quickly as they can for cheap political gain? In view of what I know to be the genuine fears of Opposition Members about good husbandry and good management, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that any circular on the subject will have strong bipartisan support?

Mr. Oakes: The selling-off of council houses would not have a direct bearing on the level of rate support. In view of the waiting lists, as my hon. Friend has said, and the need for rented accommodation, we as a Government would deplore the selling-off of the assets of local authorities.

Rate Support Grant (London)

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider allocating an extra sum in rate support grant to the Greater London area in view of the recently announced rate increases.

Mr. Oakes: No, Sir. The House approved the Rate Support Grant Order for 1975–76 on 12th December 1974. It was by a long way the most generous ever.

Mr. Shersby: Does the Minister agree that local authorities are retained by ratepayers and taxpayers to provide local services and that in some senses they are in the same relationship as employers and employees? Will he, therefore, tell the House whether the social contract applies to local authorities? If so, what action should be taken by ratepayers when they are faced with a claim for rates which is in excess of the social contract guidelines?

Mr. Oakes: Taxation does not come into the social contract, but I have said repeatedly to local authorities that the nation faces a great deal of economic difficulty. It behoves local authorities as much as anyone else to place priority on getting our balance of payments right and encouraging, for example, industrial production. That is the message I have tried to convey not only to local authorities in London but to authorities throughout the country.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are increasingly sickened by the constituency demands of Opposition Members for more and more expenditure from central Government resources when at the same time they seek to criticise the Government for the increase in the public borrowing requirement?

Mr. Oakes: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We are this year providing £5,430 million of the estimated local government expenditure of £8,000 million. I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I take the same view about people outside the House who, not only in the same speech but in the same sentence, demand better services and reduced rates.

Mr. Speed: In view of the Minister's earlier reply, may I ask whether he considers that the current £140 million municipalisation programme of the GLC is helping to keep down London's rates?

Mr. Oakes: First, I would very much like to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Opposition Front Bench. I am delighted to see him back in his place. As regards particular projects, the councils must decide whether within their areas they are inescapable commitments.

Council House Building

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further proposals he has in mind to increase the number of starts in the local authority house building sector this year.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Our encouragement to local authorities to build more houses will continue. We have already achieved a considerable upturn in public sector house building and my right hon. Friend will shortly be issuing a further circular to local authorities advising them on various measures to produce more houses, more quickly and more cheaply.

Mr. Dean: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and I congratulate him on the measures that have been taken so far, but does he not agree that they are only palliatives and that a huge building programme is needed in view of the wreckage of the building programme left by his predecessors—namely, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)? Does he agree that the incentives so far offered are inadequate? Will he consider the whole situation in view of the fact that we need the biggest building programme in our history unless we are to be faced with the same housing problem at the turn of the century? Will he consider raising immediately the 66 per cent. grant on the capital programme as an incentive for a start to be made? Further, will he make sure that the Land Bill, which is shortly to come before Parliament, will contain adequate powers for local authorities to take into immediate control such building land as they require for building houses?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Land Bill which will be published shortly. I certainly agree that a very great deal more needs to be done to increase local authority and private house building programmes. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that at three minutes to 11 o'clock last night the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill received Royal Assent. That measure repeals some of the most obnoxious provisions of the Housing Finance Act. On that basis we can now go forward with the new subsidies to improve upon the already excellent record of the present Government. There were 151,000 tender approvals in 1974 compared with 114,000 in 1973. That is the highest total for any year since 1968.

Mr. Fry: Is the Minister aware that even when the latest legislation is in force many councils will find that with the maximum subsidy available there will be a deficit of approximately £20 a week on each new local authority house that is built? Is he aware that that deficit can be provided for only by other council tenants in the area or by the ratepayers? Is it not time that the Government came clean with ratepayers and council house tenants and told them of the full implications of their legislation?

Mr. Kaufman: We have dealt with this matter at length. The fact is that local authorities put forward their own proposals for rents based upon their own assessment of their financial position. They are no longer compelled by the Government to fix arbitrary rents based on diktats from Whitehall.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) that the length of his supplementary question has cut out his colleagues.

Furnished Lettings

Dr. Hampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from estate agents about the effects of the Rent Act on furnished lettings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kaufman: My Department has received a number of representations from

estate agents about the effects of the Act. These were mainly concerned with lettings by temporarily absent owner-occupiers.

Dr. Hampson: My local estate agents tell me that since the passing of the Act 25 per cent. fewer lettings have been effected and that landlords are not wanting to relet furnished accommodation once it becomes vacant. Is the Minister aware that as a proportion furnished lettings have been steadily declining although the actual number of lettings has remained fairly constant? Does he accept that his Act will push down the numbers? When will he change this legislation? Instead of helping the situation, it is worsening it.

Mr. Kaufman: Myths are growing up that are unsubstantiated by evidence about the reduction of the furnished housing market. One of the reasons for there being fewer advertisements for furnished accommodation is that security of tenure now exists in furnished accommodation. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have had no representations from estate agents along the lines he has put forward.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that landlords as a group have never been great friends of tenants, and that the Conservative Party has always loved to desperation practically every landlord who has ever lived?

Mr. Kaufman: The scales remain on the eyes of Conservative Members when it comes to landlords but fall when it comes to tenants. There are good landlords but, unfortunately, there are too many bad landlords. Our legislation is intended to protect good tenants from bad landlords.

Rates

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his estimate of the average 25 per cent. increase in rates refers to domestic late-payers or not.

Mr. Crosland: As I made quite clear in our debate in the House on 12th December last, my estimate of a 25 per cent. average increase was for domestic rate bills in England and Wales in 1975–76. The estimate allowed for the special


domestic relief scheme introduced in 1974–75, excluded water and sewerage charges and was based on the essential proviso that all authorities fixed their budgets in accordance with the guidance on expenditure levels subsequently set out in my Department's Circular 171/74.

Mr. Morris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Would it not have been more honest, however, if right at the beginning he had said to the House and to the nation that the average increase in domestic rates would be 35 per cent. to 40 per cent.? Knowing now that that is the situation, what help does he propose to give to domestic ratepayers?

Mr. Crosland: We cannot possibly know whether that is the situation as we have had final rate determinations from only 48 out of more than 400 rating authorities. Therefore, any guess as to the final outcome is purely speculative. If in the latter part of his supplementary question the hon. Gentleman was suggesting—I do not know whether this reflects Tory Party policy—that after the additional £2,000 million grant given this year, given the country's desperate economic situation and the constant pleas from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for more constraint in public expenditure, we should find yet more money this year, I am not in agreement with him.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the bigegst rate support grant ever contains a proportion to be spent on education, so that no local authority should cut back on existing education services in an endeavour to keep within the guidelines of the 25 per cent. which he laid down?

Mr. Crosland: There is no reason why authorities should cut back on services. The grant settlement assumed that there would be an increase in real terms of 4 per cent. in spending to meet inescapable commitments. Therefore, there is no reason why there should be a cutback of existing services.

Mr. Raison: Does the Secretary of State accept that not only domestic ratepayers but also small businesses and shopkeepers face a grim picture? Does he also accept that it is not merely a question of controlling local government extravagance but that there is a desperate need for central Government not to im-

pose additional expensive services on local authorities?

Mr. Crosland: Of course the non-domestic ratepayer is also much concerned. That is why we have so arranged things this year that the non-domestic ratepayer is likely to have a smaller increase than is the domestic ratepayer. The non-domestic ratepayer was hard hit last year and that is why we deliberately made a difference for this year. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, circular 171/74 makes clear—and I have repeatedly made clear—to the associations that we shall desist from the bad practice of all Governments of asking for economy on the one hand and on the other hand charging round the country making pleas for pet projects.

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what evidence he based his prediction that the total rate demand for 1975–76 should not on average exceed that for the current year by more than 25 per cent.

Mr. Crosland: I ventured no such prediction. I said, and have repeated, that a 25 per cent. average increase in domestic rates was possible if, and only if, local authority spending was restrained within the totals set out in the rate support grant settlement of last November.

Mr. Jones: Averages are misleading, and sometimes are meant to be. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the average rate increase in the Greater London area will lie somewhere between 40 and 86 per cent. for all authorities and whether countrywide the water and general services increases are likely to be from 25 to 50 per cent.? What will happen now that there is to be no special rate relief in the coming financial year—a relief which amounts to £150 million in the current year? What will be the general effect on the situation?

Mr. Crosland: Averages are not misleading; they are simply averages, which implies that some are above and some are below. That is a fact about averages. We all appreciate that the London rate increase will be substantially higher than the average. On the other hand, we also know that there are cases which are lower than the average—such as, for example,


Leeds, Lincoln and others of which I have a list. It would be foolish to speculate on the final result for the year because as yet we lack adequate information. On the question of special relief, I must emphasise that the Government have already contributed an additional £2,000 million to assist ratepayers compared with the previous year. That is a substantial sum to be going on with.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend any advice to offer to local authorities whose commitments next year may lead them to have rate poundages in excess of an additional 25 per cent. following their decision to go in for civic buildings and other projects which by no stretch of the imagination can be termed "inescapable commitments"?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot comment on any particular case, but I must confess that I am taken aback by the plans of a number of local authorities at present in respect of huge expenditure on new town halls, city halls, county halls and office blocks. I must be fair and say that this is sometimes the consequence of local government reorganisation, which means that in certain cities two headquarters are needed where only one was needed before. But a number of councils are being near to reckless with ratepayers' money in expenditure on these luxury items.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the national average of rate increases in 1975–76.

Mr. Oakes: As so many authorities have yet to decide their rate levels for 1975–76, there is not sufficient information to enable an estimate to be made.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Under-Secretary please go on another journey, this time to the local branches of the Labour Party, which in county after county are trying to frustrate the Government's wishes by opposing the councils which are restraining increases in local government expenditure? Is it not time that those Labour Party branches learned the truth about our national situation?

Mr. Oakes: I totally repudiate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Labour Party branches. If time allowed

I could give many instances of Labour groups on councils which have not only co-operated with the Government but have done their best, sometimes against Conservative-controlled councils, to abide by the Government's guidelines. The majority of councils are doing that. There are exceptions, as my right hon. Friend has said. I have no doubt that the electorate in those areas will bear due regard to what the Government have said and what their councils are doing.

Mr. Rooker: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is nothing short of a public scandal that local government officers and employees earning in excess of £200 a week are claiming threshold payments?

Mr. Oakes: That depends on the size of the authority and the responsibility of the officer concerned, bearing in mind that local government and the level of administration of local government must compete with the private sector.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Humber Bridge to be opened.

Mr. Crosland: I understand that, unless unforeseen difficulties arise, the Humber Bridge Board expects the bridge to be open by the end of 1977.

Mr. Brotherton: I am not sure how familiar the right hon. Gentleman is with the South Humberside and Grimsby area, but is he aware that the road system on the south bank is totally inadequate? Will he consider delaying the opening of the bridge until adequate roads have been constructed to take care of the expected traffic?

Mr. Crosland: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been around in that area a good deal longer than he has and I had a rather larger majority than he did at the last General Election. I am very familiar with the question of the South Humberside roads and I am not satisfied with progress. The broad picture is that west of the bridge the position is satisfactory. East of the bridge, which is what concerns both of us, there will be a gap between the opening of the bridge and the completion of the road network. I


am constantly trying to speed up the completion of the road network, but that is easier said than done.

Mr. Fox: The Opposition remember the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) at a by-election in North Hull when she promised that the bridge would be built. Does the Minister accept that what worries people in the area is not the opening date but the cost? Is he prepared to reconsider the financial implications?

Mr. Crosland: Any coincidence of timing with any by-election was entirely adventitious. The cost of the bridge has escalated, as indeed has the cost of all major road-building projects. The cost is now put at £37 million, but I have no plans to reconsider the cost with the Humber Bridge Board.

Homeless Persons

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how his review of homelessness is progressing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kaufman: There have been discussions between the Government Departments concerned, and a consultation paper will shortly be issued to the local authority associations and representative voluntary and professional organisations.

Mr. Lane: As there are at least 10 empty properties for every homeless family, does the Minister agree that no single action would do more to help the homeless than the quicker re-use of empty property? Even in advance of this consultation, will he give a vigorous new prod to local authorities, because they own a large proportion of the empty properties throughout the country?

Mr. Kaufman: It is both local authorities and others, and we wish to give a prod to all. I draw to the hon. Gentleman attention the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) in which he announced possible measures for the future to enable empty private properties to be brought into social control in co-operation with local authorities or housing associations. That is one part of it,

but local authorities must certainly make better use of their own properties.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister initiate a crash house building programme to help simultaneously the homeless and the unemployed along the lines of President Roosevelt's New Deal, the NRA? Will my hon. Friend consider seriously a special subsidy above that contained in the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act for every new council house started within the next 12 months? Would not that have a dramatic effect on house building?

Mr. Kaufman: I share my hon. Friend's view that a great deal more needs to be done. The new subsidy provided in the Act which became law yesterday will be a major incentive, but I share my hon. Friend's view that further incentives will be necessary, and that is the purpose of the housing finance review upon which we are engaged.

Mr. Rossi: May I refer the Minister to the aspect of homelessness known as squatting? Is he aware of the growing concern among local authorities and the mounting public anger over the spectacle of families in dire housing need who for many years have been on council housing lists being pipped at the post often by families moving in from outside the district? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also of the great burden put upon ratepayers by the money which local authorities have to spend to make good those premises once the squatters have gone? Will he take steps to strengthen the powers of local authorities to deal with this growing problem?

Mr. Kaufman: It is certainly a serious problem, and it is one to which we are giving marked attention within the Department.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities which wish to deal with the housing problem have trouble over the definition of "homelessness"? I understand from consultations with one of my authorities that although it wishes to purchase properties it has not been able to satisfy the Minister's Department in this respect. Is the definition of "homelessness" under consideration?

Mr. Kaufman: It is part of the review that is taking place.

Pollution

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take arising from the fourth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Mr. Crosland: I shall be writing to the Chairman of the Royal Commission shortly giving my detailed views on the report. In view of the wide interest in the matters covered by this report, I intend to publish the text of my reply along with other material summarising the action taken in response to the first four reports of the commission.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to paragraph 143 of the report, which points out that some Western European countries are more ambitious than we are in the removal of lead additive from petrol? Will he have a private chat with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on this point?

Mr. Crosland: I have indeed had a private chat. The question of lead in petrol is one of the most controversial, not merely environmentally but scientifically, in the whole aspect of environmental pollution. I am aware of the problem, and I hope to say something about it in my reply to the chairman.

House Building

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in which of the months since March 1974 the number of private houses started in Great Britain has exceeded the number of private houses started in the equivalent month of the previous year.

Mr. Kaufman: None, Sir, as was the case in 11 out of the 12 preceding months. Over the period since March 1974 the number of public sector starts has been greater each month than in the corresponding month in the previous year.

Mr. Latham: As the figures clearly show that the Government's April 1974 measures failed, what confidence can we place in the January 1975 measures?

Mr. Kaufman: We can place confidence in the fact that net new mortgage commitments were running at £140 mil-

lion per month last spring and that the January figure for this year was £348 million—far more than double.

Mr. Ford: Is my hon. Friend aware that a further impact could be made on the construction of private housing if local authorities were encouraged to speed up their procedure for the consideration of planning applications? Is it not unsatisfactory that many local authorities meet only once a month—some only six-weekly—and that they sometimes demonstrate incompetence in dealing with applications?

Mr. Kaufman: I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend has said. Guidance will shortly be issued by the Department.

Building Societies

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he now has any plans to control the flow of funds available for disposal by the building societies.

Mr. Crosland: As I made clear in the House on 27th January—[Vol. 885, c. 43–4]—the Government are committed to the principle of stabilisation of mortgage finance. We maintain close and continuing consultation with the Building Societies' Association about the measures which may be necessary from time to time.

Mr. Watkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that deposits coming into the building societies are increasing rapidly? If and when the house market begins to move shall we not face the serious danger of a repetition of the spiralling house prices which we experienced in the early 1970s? Therefore, is it not necessary to set up a stabilisation fund in the immediate future?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, there is a danger that a combination of greatly increased mortgage commitments, combined with the present failure to increase the number of starts in the house building sector, could lead to a wholly undesirable house price explosion. This is at the forefront of my mind in discussing the question of stabilisation. However, it does not involve any question of a stabilisation fund because, in effect, the Government


are now acting as a stabilisation fund. I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider taking the step advocated by the Conservative Party at the last election—namely reducing the level of mortgage interest for first-time home buyers so that we can begin to get people into houses rather than leave them empty?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed my recent statement that we have introduced, with the agreement of the building societies a low-start mortgage scheme.

Local Authority Mortgage Interest

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy towards assistance to those with local mortgages whose interest rates are currently in excess of the Building Societies Association's recommended rates, following his general review of housing finance.

Mr. Kaufman: While the longer-term issues will be considered in the review of housing finance, I am now studying whether anything can be done in the short term about the difficult problem of local authorities charging high mortgage interest rates.

Mr. MacGregor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in correspondence with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment I was promised a full reply at the end of November? Will he recognise that many people with variable mortgages with local authorities are paying over 11 per cent. and that, as recognised in the scheme, they are often people with lower than average incomes? Does he appreciate that some of these people face real difficulties in meeting their commitments, which grow greater from month to month, and feel that they are being treated unfairly compared with people repaying mortgages to building societies? Will he treat the matter as one of urgency and introduce an interim solution very shortly indeed?

Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had a reply to his letter. I have a draft copy in my brief

and I hope that he will get the reply quickly. I agree with him that this is an urgent matter, and we are trying to find a way to deal with it.

Mr. McNamara: Since there is a shortage of new houses on which building societies can make advances within the average income of working people, will my hon. Friend look into the situation whereby building societies are loth to advance money on older houses and are thus forcing people to go to local authorities whose interest rates are higher?

Mr. Kaufman: That may be so. The situation varies. Most local authorities are still bringing down mortgage rates. Only a very small minority are affected, but admittedly this is a serious problem.

Local Government (Senior Staff)

Mr. Snape: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up an inquiry into the cost of local government reorganisation with particular regard to gradings and salaries of chief and senior officers.

Mr. Oakes: No, Sir. Local authorities are responsible for the grading and salaries of their staffs.

Mr. Snape: Is my hon. Friend aware that ratepayers do not share his complacency on this matter? Does he not agree that it would be better to prove the point which I seek to make by setting up a nationwide inquiry so that the chief and senior officers throughout the country whose salaries are in excess of that paid to the Secretary of State for the Environment could at least attempt to justify the income which they now receive?

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend talks about the salaries of chief and senior officers. Top salaries are due for a special review in 1975. Undertakings were given in various negotiating bodies that top salaries for personnel in reorganised local government, the National Health Service and water authorities would be reviewed by April 1975 in the light of the experience of the new posts.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister look back at the Official Report of 13th February in which there appears a very good debate on this subject? In that debate the Liberals also asked for an


inquiry. I draw attention to some staggering figures—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister look into the situation of the regional water authorities, over which he has some control, since rates in one town in my constituency have risen by 974 per cent. in respect of sewerage services?

Mr. Oakes: I am aware of the concern expressed about the increase in water rates. I would tell the House—I do not blame the hon. Gentleman—that many of the difficulties in regard to the regional water authorities were caused by their creation and the way in which they were created by our predecessors. The rates charged by regional water authorities are subject to control, and the question of salaries and expenditure is under constant review.

New Towns

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes publishing a White Paper or introducing legislation to follow up the new towns consultative paper.

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friends are awaiting the outcome of the consultations.

Mr. Moonman: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the consultative paper is the first statement of intention since the new towns were contemplated? Does he not agree that if he wishes to maintain the necessary progress of the new town movement he should come to the House with a clear statement as soon as possible, otherwise he will frustrate many thousands of people in the new towns?

Mr. Oakes: We are hoping that the results of the consultation will be received by the end of the month, and certainly before Easter. On this basis firm Government policy could be announced during the summer, with legislation to follow next year. On the question of a debate, this is the third time in the House this afternoon that there has been a request for a debate on a subject. I shall put the matter to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I think my hon. Friend will understand the pressures of parliamentary time.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I support the hon. Gentleman when he says that there is need for a debate? May I request that, if there is to be a Bill or White Paper, some reference will be included as to the need for the rate support grant and that help will be given to the new towns, especially where there is a population increase?

Mr. Oakes: This is the difficulty with the rate support grant. We have tried to improve matters in the rate support grant for this year. There are constant reviews to see how we can improve the formula, particularly in respect of counties which have new towns in their midst.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps the Government propose to take to secure financial support from overseas for the construction of the Channel Tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on 28th January.—[Vol. 885, c. 153–4.]

Mr. Speed: In view of the recent debate on this matter by the European Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are looking either at direct cash aid or at guarantees from the European Investment Bank?

Mr. Crosland: There is a misunderstanding, as there was throughout the debate. It was not the shortage of loan funds which caused the Government to take the decision to abandon the project. The reason was that the companies were trying to enforce a date which we were not prepared to accept. With regard to the debate which has been referred to, the Commissioner, Signor Mugnozza, said firmly that the Commission had no means or resources of its own to offer to Governments, and the resources of the European Investment Bank would be irrelevant to a project of this size.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary showed glee in announcing housing figures for 1974 which showed an improvement on 1973? One suspects that those figures will improve


further during the year. Is my right hon. Friend, like me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have been known to vote in the same Lobby on occasions. Is he, like me, prepared to give consideration to the fact that one of the reasons why the figures are better is that we tended to concentrate our resources more sharply and clearly upon housing requirements? In that event, whether the Common Market aids us or not, we cannot afford to use our resources on projects such as the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Crosland: I am flattered that my hon. Friend can see so clearly the resemblance between us. As to the substance of his question, I cannot wholly agree with my hon. Friend since I have pointed out—and this matter will come up again in the next Question—that the resources we save by not going ahead with the tunnel will not be available for housing or anything else. Those resources will be required to finance alternative forms of transport investment to move the same number of people across the Channel in different ways.

Railways (Investment)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what revision he plans for investment in British Rail as a result of the cancellation of the Channel Tunnel project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: It is too early to say.

Mr. Adley: Is the Secretary of State aware that it seems inconceivable to many people that the Channel Tunnel was cancelled because of a misunderstanding over dates? Does he recognise that the guarantees which were to be provided by the Government may be available elsewhere? Will he at least state clearly in principle that the Government will not obstruct any proposals which may be made from elsewhere to enable Channel Tunnel companies to build the tunnel?

Mr. Crosland: There was no misunderstanding over dates. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have said before, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, that we shall seriously consider any proposals that might be made.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider as a matter of urgency diverting Channel Tunnel investment to British Rail so that it can replace some of its worn-out and obsolete stock on secondary lines which are now much in need of an urgent cash injection to attract people from the roads to public transport?

Mr. Crosland: The investment will in practice have to be diverted not only to British Rail but also to the operators of ferries or hovercraft and to improve some of the ports which will carry more traffic. That is where the investment will have to be directed.

Mr. Costain: Is the Secretary of State aware of the effect of rumours on people trying to sell property in the area affected, particularly Newington? Does he realise that such property has been blighted for more than 11 years? As long as these rumours exist, it is difficult to sell property. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Channel Tunnel will not be started again, as he did three weeks ago, but of which nobody took any notice?

Mr. Crosland: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have effectively lifted the blight for the foreseeable future from the parts of Kent and Surrey which were affected. I do not believe that any of the ideas floated in the Strasbourg discussion will come to fruition. I do not believe that sufficient European funds are available, either in the Commission or the European Investment Bank. Nevertheless if any proposals are made I shall not reject them before I have considered them.

Mr. Christopher Price: Some hon. Members who voted with a will to get rid of the Channel Tunnel realised at the time that that action would cause severe congestion, especially in South-East London. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind, especially when considering the future of transport in London, and realise that if he rules out the extension of the Fleet Line to Lewisham, which is not irrelevant to this matter, there will be great disappointment in many parts of South-East London?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is right. By no means all the consequences of cancelling the tunnel will be agreeable—very


far from it. We are now examining in some detail the consequential decisions that have to be taken regarding all other forms of transport as a result of our decision to cancel.

Local Authority Public Works Departments

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce proposals to enable the public works department of a local authority to undertake work for another authority.

Mr. Crosland: I am extremely concerned about this problem, which is causing anxiety in several areas. I hope shortly to lay an order before the House to resolve the immediate difficulties arising from local government reorganisation. Any wider proposal would require legislation and I am urgently considering this.

Dr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give a definite assurance that the long-term problem will be solved by general legislation as soon as possible?

Mr. Crosland: I cannot give a definite assurance because our study of the matter has not yet come to fruition. I think that my hon. Friend probably knows, from many statements I have made in opposition as well as in government, that I am personally strongly committed to the maximum possible expansion of direct labour departments.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Secretary of State aware of the very unsatisfactory economic performance of many of these departments? Would it not be a contribution to restraining the increase in rates if their activities could in turn be restrained?

Mr. Crosland: There are good and bad direct labour departments, just as there are good and bad private builders. For my part I am anxious to encourage efficient builders, whether publicly-owned or private.

New Villages

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to

the creation of new villages as opposed to new towns.

Mr. Oakes: The consultation document on new towns, of which I informed the House on 15th January in reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller), invites comments on the idea of clusters of new villages within travel-to-work distances of each other. I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will be among those who comment.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I welcome the Minister's comments, but may I make the point that new towns have failed in human and social terms because their size makes the creation of a sense of community almost impossible to achieve, and that for that reason the creation of new settlements the size of villages should be tried?

Mr. Oakes: The consultation document provides many interesting innovations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that size is crucial and that we should be looking at the size of a community and all its social consequences.

Mr. Corbet: Before my hon. Friend gets on with looking at this interesting idea about new villages, will he bear in mind that white collar and manual staff employed by the Commission for New Towns are apprehensive about their jobs and about the future until his Depart-men sets a firm and early date for the transfer of assets to the elected local authorities?

Mr. Oakes: That is another matter, which does not arise on this Question. But there is still a very considerable job to do by the commission with special regard to industrial and commercial land.

Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider setting up also an old towns corporation in order to bring back prosperity to decaying inner city areas of the North-West?

Mr. Oakes: No Government have done more than this one in rate support grant aid to older local authorities in order to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman rightly asks us to do.

FINANCE BILL (REPORT STAGE)

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter with you concerning further progress in this House on the Finance Bill.
In Committee, the Government were made aware of the need to have their amendments and new clauses tabled in good time for the Report stage. I understand that the Report stage is likely to be started on Monday of next week.
It appears that the Government have not yet tabled all their amendments and that at least one and possibly three new clauses have not been tabled at all. Certainly that was the position this morning, although a great many new clauses and amendments have been tabled today. However, as I see it, there can be no further new clauses tabled so that they will be available to hon. Members before tomorrow morning. I refer to amendments dealing with capital distributions to trusts and possibly with charities, and a new clause dealing with forestry, none of which is yet on the Notice Paper.
If these amendments are not on the Notice Paper until tomorrow morning, it will mean that hon. Members who wish to table amendments to those amendments and new clauses will not be in a position to do so until tomorrow. That in turn will mean that they will not appear on the Notice Paper until Friday, and only then as starred amendments, which will be starred in respect of any debate which may take place next Monday.
That would be all right if it were possible to get amendments tabled as quickly as that. But the interests concerned here are very major ones—forestry, charities, agriculture and many settlements—and it will be necessary for some consultation to take place about major new clauses which may or may not be tabled today and appear on the Notice Paper tomorrow.
The Bill has been altered radically in Committee and is promised by the Government to be further altered. I submit that it is not satisfactory for this House to be presented with major new clauses on a Thursday morning which will be considered on Report on the following Monday.
I raised this matter in advance with the Chief Secretary in Committee. I will not bore the House with quoting what I asked the right hon. Gentleman, but he obligingly replied:
I am aware of the problem. I always try to help hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are so kind, generous and courteous at all times, and I will try to be the same."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13th February 1975, cc. 1591–2.]
The Government have not fulfilled that undertaking, and I submit that it would be quite improper for the Report stage to start before next Tuesday at the earliest because there will not be time to table amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, will be able to consider, and which will be unstarred, in time for proper and orderly debate to take place on the first day of the Report stage.
I hope you will agree with me that it would be quite wrong for this House to enter into the Report stage at least before next Tuesday.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quite apart from the gravely damaging nature of the proposals contained in the Bill and the effect that they will have on employment and enterprises throughout the country, it emerges from the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that the proposals themselves are wholly ill-considered and are, even now, being handled without consideration for this House and for people outside—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we can have a discussion on the merits on a point of order.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was passing to the matter of substance raised by my hon. Friend. It is quite impossible for hon. Members and for interested parties outside this House who have to be consulted to consider legislation being prepared in this way. I express the hope to you that generous consideration will be given to calling and allowing us to debate starred amendments, and that the Government will consider it their duty to bring forward legislation in a more appropriate form than they are seeking to do to deal with this tax—better still, to withdraw tax.

The Chief Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): Perhaps I may deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who knows something about them, and tell him that up to last night 83 Government amendments and new clauses had been tabled, that there will be more in the possession of the House today and tomorrow, and that I shall be happy to deal with the untruths just uttered by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe).

Mr. Burden: Do not the remarks just made by the Chief Secretary indicate the real situation? He said that already 83 new clauses and amendments had been tabled and that others would follow. It is obvious that there will be no time for proper consideration or consultation on so many amendments.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we have a great deal to do.

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Leader of the House is present and since we have been told that 83 amendments have been tabled already, with further amendments to come today and tomorrow, would it not be for the convenience of the House if the Leader of the House told us exactly what timetable the Government have in mind for the future progress of the Finance Bill?

Mr. Speaker: These matters can be raised on the Business Statement tomorrow, if need be. The only matters that the Chair has to consider are starred amendments and possibly manuscript amendments. I shall take all these matters into account when I am deciding my selection of amendments.

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider adjourning the Notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)? The motion has been put down extremely late today, and it is a matter of considerable concern—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Lady that I have no power to adjourn it. I must call it in due course.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, of course, and I do not in any way question your judgment. But the composition of this Select Committee is a matter of enormous importance to every woman in the country—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady studies Standing Order No. 13 she will appreciate that I have to hear one side and then the other side and make my own judgment.

EEC MEMBERSHIP (REFERENDUM)

Sir Anthony Meyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you have received any request from the Leader of the House to make a statement on the referendum on the European Economic Community?

Mr. Speaker: No.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 14TH MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison.

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Geoff Edge.

BILL PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS

Mrs. Secretary Castle, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary Foot, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Brian O'Malley, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mr. Alec Jones, presented a Bill to provide for relating the rates of social security retirement pensions and certain other benefits to the earnings on which contributions have been paid; to enable employed earners to be contracted-out of full social security contributions and benefits where the requisite benefits are provided by an occupational pension


scheme; to make provision for securing that men and women are afforded equal access to occupational pension schemes; and to make other amendments in the law relating to social security and to occupational pensions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered.
That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question on the Second Reading of the Lotteries Bill not later than Seven o'clock; and if the proceedings on the Second Reading of the Lotteries Bill shall have been concluded before Seven o'clock Mr. Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion relating to Lotteries [Money] not later than Seven o'clock, but that if the Question on the Second Reading of the Lotteries Bill shall have been put at Seven o'clock Mr. Speaker shall put the Question forthwith on the Motion relating to Lotteries [Money]; and that Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion relating to the Civil List (Increase of Financial Provision) Order (S.I., 1975, No. 133) not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Coleman.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the Transfer of Constables &amp;c. (Scotland) Order 1975 (S.I, 1975, No. 60) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

CONVEYANCERS (HOMES FOR THE PEOPLE) BILL

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the acquisition or exchange of small residential properties by the establishment of a new conveyancing service under a Conveyancers Council with appropriate powers and duties, for the reduction of charges and delays in such matters, and for other purposes.
In asking the leave of the House to introduce this Bill under the Ten Minute Rule procedure I wish to do two things as a preliminary. First, I declare an interest in that I am President of the National Houseowners' Society. But I have no financial interest in it. I accepted the position because I have a strong personal interest in conveyancing reform.
Second, in the course of my speech I shall have to mention solicitors as a group in the context of my arguments. In doing this I emphasise that I mean no discourtesy, since some members of that profession are also hon. Members of this House.
I seek support—[Interruption.]—today from both sides of the Chamber—[Interruption.]—and I hope that the arguments in principle, stemming from the Long Title will be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a great many conversations going on. I wish that they would go on outside the Chamber.

Mr. Weetch: I hope that these arguments will be found acceptable to all sections of political opinion.
The Bill has two purposes. The first is to bring some competition and fresh air into the whole area of conveyancing and the transfer of residential property, but to bring this competition to bear in a controlled and well-supervised way to protect and maintain standards. The ultimate aim of the Bill is to reduce the expenses for owner-occupiers of modest means in a critical area of high cost, that of moving house. More particularly it is aimed at reducing the high cost of the legal transactions that occur when ordinary people buy and sell.
The Bill's second purpose is to suggest regulations and to construct machinery


with a large consumer representation, to ensure that the highest standards are maintained when conveyancing is made easier and cheaper, so that although the cost of transferring property is reduced, standards are not.
I consider the Bill to be an important step forward in consumer affairs. In particular, it is in line with paragraph 108(e) of the recommendations of the Second Report on the Remuneration of Solicitors issued in March 1971. That report said:
Further consideration should be given to the means of achieving simple, cheap and reliable registered conveyancing.
In general I can say with every confidence that there is widespread dissatisfaction throughout the country with the high cost of moving house. It is agreed by the vast majority of people, certainly from my own researches, that an important part of that cost is concerned with legal fees for conveyancing. The crucial point at issue is that until recently these very high charges have been the consequence of a restrictive statutory monopoly. The best expression of that is in Section 20 of the Solicitors Act 1957. Under that section, conveyancing property for fee or gain is, in effect, restricted to solicitors.
It is difficult to establish what solicitors' charges for conveyancing are in terms of general statistics since the scale charges were abolished two years ago. But they do not come within the social contract. I can tell you that for nothing, Mr. Speaker. I have a bill in my hand for the sale of a property in the London area. It was registered property. It was a straightforward transaction. The value of the house was £13,500. The charge for selling the property was £158. It could have been done at a reasonable profit for half that figure.
My point is that any monopoly which is responsible for and gives rise to charges such as that is responsible for social extortion. Those are my words. But they were the sentiments, put more politely, of the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes of 1968 and 1971. When a restrictive and high-priced monopoly is established it is in the nature of men in this country to challenge it. Indeed, much of the history of this House and its Members has been concerned with the challenge of monopolies. In recent

years this monopoly has been effectively challenged. There are a number of organisations operating in this area. The National Houseowners' Society has completed 25,000 conveyances, 7,000 of which have been for the GLC. There are now others operating here. One is Stewart Title and the Property Transfer Association is another.
While I am pleased to see the monopoly being challenged and costs cut by 50 per cent., the plain fact is that as more firms enter this area, because of the high profits to be gained by breaking this restrictive practice, the whole situation threatens to become unregulated and unstable. This must be avoided because, although we need competition to bring down costs, buying a house is the most important purchase in many people's lives. There must be no fly-by-nights in this area. What the Bill purports to do, in short, is this: it seeks to extend the class of persons who can conveyance for fee or gain. In particular it seeks to re-establish the professional conveyancers who are specialists in this area. I say "re-establish" because professional conveyancers used to exist until they were legislatively strangled in the dark.
The Bill seeks to establish machinery for the effective supervision of such conveyancers and to bring in the consumer in a substantial way so that prices are kept reasonable for the work done. There is a need for reform because the present system is expensive and highly priced for the work done, especially with registered property. Conveyancing is an expensive factor in the high cost of moving house. It impedes mobility. It is unjust and bears heavily on owner-occupiers of modest means. In this age of rapid inflation this Bill can bring prices down "at a stroke", if I may use someone else's phrase.
I should like hon. Members to note one more thing: if I have the good fortune to be granted leave to introduce this Bill, I ask hon. Members to note that throughout the personal pronoun will be used in the feminine gender. The masculine gender has covered both cases for too long and I hope to kill two restrictive practices with one stone.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr.


Frank Allaun, Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. Bruce Grocott.

CONVEYANCERS (HOMES FOR THE PEOPLE)

Mr. Ken Weetch accordingly presented a Bill to make better provision for the acquisition or exchange of small residential properties by the establishment of a new conveyancing service under a Conveyancers Council with appropriate powers and duties, for the reduction of charges and delays in such matters, and for other purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25th April and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that Standing Order No. 13 bequeaths unto you two discretions. I wish to put—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I am to have points of order on how I should exercise my discretion, the whole proceeding will be counter-productive. I am well aware of the terms of the Standing Order. I have every intention of listening to two brief explanatory statements, one on each side, and considering them. If hon. Members attempt to tell me how to do that now, it will not help.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not wish to waste the time of the House, but I should like to put one point for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the procedure of proposing a Select Committee in this way has not been used for many years. I realise that all hon. Members are aware of that. However, I should like you to take on board the possibility that frequent use of this procedure could drive a coach and horses through the time of this House, because any hon. Member could put down such a motion on any vexatious idea or principle. I should like you to bear that point in mind in exercising your discretion.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, but it is somewhat tiresome, because if I appear to give in to this kind of pressure regarding the exercise of my discretion it would seem that I am being told how to use it. The Standing Order leaves the matter to me. I am well aware of these factors. I intend to exercise discretion as best I can, but I must first hear the brief explanatory statements.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking for your discretion. I want to make it clear that if there is a vote against the motion, it is not a vote against the principle of a Select Committee but only against the selection that is currently set out in the motion.

Mr. Speaker: If we get to a vote, I will do my best, if there is any doubt, to indicate what it is about.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move,
That Mr. Leo Abse, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Anthony Fell, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Dr. Miller, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James White, and Mr. Frederick Willey be members of the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
The motion refers to the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the Abortion (Amendment) Bill so that it can proceed with its work without any delay.
As has been said, I move the motion in the terms of Standing Order No. 13, which, as far as I can establish, is a procedure rarely used in the Commons but I believe was designed for the kind of situation which has been created by the repeated objections of a small group of hon. Members to the membership of the Select Committee proposed by the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, which coincides with my choice.
Hon. Members will recall that on Friday 7th February the Abortion (Amendment) Bill presented by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) and sponsored by hon. Members of all parties, including myself, was given a Second Reading by a substantial majority—203 in favour and 88 against.
Thereafter, the House unanimously agreed, without a vote and without any


dissenting voice, that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. These were clear decisions of the House, one by a massive majority and the other unanimous. Therefore, the will and the intention of the House were clearly established.
I understand that shortly afterwards there were discussions through the usual channels which led to the Government putting down the motion on the Order Paper proposing the names of a number of hon. Members to serve on the Select Committee. The membership proposed, in my view, and, I believe, in the view of the vast majority of the House, included respected and fair-minded Members. The proposed membership also reflected the opinion of the House on the merits of the Bill: some supporters, some opponents, and some who did not vote on 7th February. Four of the proposed Members were women, two of whom had voted against the Bill and the other two had not voted on 7th February.
However, as must have been obvious to everyone who has stayed late in the Commons in recent nights, the motion nominating the Members to serve on the Select Committee has been blocked by a small minority of hon. Members, all of whom, so far as I am aware—[An HON. MEMBER: "Women."]—are bitter opponents of the Bill, which, as I said, was approved in the House by a substantial majority. In my view, these blocking tactics are frustrating the will of the House that a Select Committee be established and allowed to get on with its work. It has been clear that there were these feelings. We must not allow such tactics to continue. The list of amendments to the membership of the Select Committee despite points which have been made to me about disagreements on its composition, are frivolous and demonstrate the real intentions of the objectors to delay and frustrate the setting up of the Committee.
I will give one example. The amendments propose that all the male Members on the Committee be removed, including the promoter of the Bill. I suggest that, while there might be disagreements about the right persons to serve on the Committee, it is frivolous on a Bill of this nature to suggest that not only the pro-

moter of the Bill but all the male Members be taken off it.
Although it is distinctly unwise these days for any Conservative to minimise the contribution that ladies can make to the political progress of Britain, I cannot believe that the House would consider it appropriate that a Bill of this kind should be considered by a Select Committee consisting entirely of women Members and effectively packed with opponents of the Bill which the House approved by a substantial majority. It cannot be right that minorities within this House should be able to ignore the will of the House and impose their will on it. That is what is happening. We might as well propose that the Finance Bill Committee should consist only of chartered accountants and that the Coal Bill Committee should consist only of miners.
The working of the Abortion Act has caused grave disquiet in the nation. That was reflected by the attendance in the House of Commons on 7th February and the clear decision that was taken on that day. The House agreed that a Select Committee should be appointed. The only issue now remaining concerns who should serve on it. As a result of consultations, a list of hon. Members has been proposed. I believe that the vast majority of reasonable hon. Members will agree with the choice that has been made. If not, we must come to a decision so that the Committee, of whatever membership, can get on with its job.
The object of the motion is to enable the House to express a view on the membership of this proposed Select Committee so that it can get on with its work. I believe that is the intention of the vast majority of the House and that that intention is being frustrated.

3.58 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I should like to inform the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that there is nothing less frivolous than abortion to the women Members of this House, to the women of this country, to the men who care for those women, and to their families. The use of the word "frivolous" nullifies any serious attention that the House should give to this preposterous motion.
I do not oppose the use of Standing Order No. 13. It is a very good Standing


Order because it protects the rights of this House. I regret that we have fallen into a habit of thought which accepts that the usual channels shall appoint Members to Select Committees. In fact, according to the rules of the House, the whole House selects Members. That is the origin of the term "Select Committee".
In the course of my brief researches, I discovered that up to about 1817 it was not unusual for Members of Select Committees to be chosen by ballot. Had we done that on this occasion, we might have had a better result. But let us cherish the rights of the House to have some say in these appointments.
It is in some ways invidious for hon. Members to discuss the nominations to the Committee, but we must do so as a matter of duty. If it is said that the number of women—four out of 15—on the Committee represents the proportion of women Members, I must confess that my rather inadequate arithmetic suggests that we should have only 4½ per cent. of one woman on the Committee. I therefore submit that we cannot appoint the membership of Committees on the basis of that kind of arithmetic. It is not our fault that there are so few of us here to represent the women of this country, who are more than half the population.
Our request for more women on the Committee was represented by the hon. member for Cathcart and some of his hon. Friends as part of the pro-abortion lobby. We reject that entirely. We are exposing ourselves by asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] How cheap, how vulgar. By asking for more women Members on the Committee we might, God forbid, find ourselves joined by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). But they have a point of view which should be represented on the Committee.
I am not making this speech on the basis of a pro-or anti-abortion stand but on the basis that there should be more women Members representing a wide range of the opinions of women in this country. I know that there is a big division among women, but let us have women on the Committee to put these points of view.
When I first came to the House, the late Herbert Morrison said to me "You will do all right, girl, so long as you stick to women's questions." I was so angry about that that I made my maiden speech on foreign affairs. He said to me afterwards "I am sorry that you did not take my advice." I said "I did—I was trying to speak about peace." Throughout my 20 years in this House I have taken the view that there are very few questions which should be pigeonholed as "women's" questions. I do not believe that prices is a women's question or that the care of children is a woman's question. That suggests that fathers do not care about their children. Very few matters can be specifically defined in that way.
However, not one hon. Gentleman in this House has ever had an abortion or has had to contemplate having one. [Laughter.]

An Hon. Member: They have had children.

Mrs. Jeger: I want it on the record that I am shocked by the laughter that we have just heard, which obviously came from insensitive Members who do not realise the seriousness of this matter.
This is one of those unusual questions which should be discussed in a Committee consisting primarily of women Members. I do not say that they should all be Members who support one side of the argument or the other. We appreciate the heavy difficulties of those who have had to make this selection, but our point is that the motion should not be carried without a reassessment of this matter, which has caused so much concern throughout the country. It will be seen that this is a very special Select Committee.
Finally—I am not trying to be funny or frivolous, as the hon. Member for Cathcart was—if we were setting up a Select Committee on vasectomy it would be odd if it had a majority of women Members—[Interruption.] I doubt whether there would be one woman on the Committee. I hope that those who are concerned, as I know my right hon. Friends arc, to achieve a fair balance in this Committee will look at the matter again and give it the grave attention which its importance merits.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the two hon. Members for their explanatory statements. Standing Order No. 13 says:
Mr. Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from a Member who opposes any such motion respectively, shall put either the question thereon or the question, 'That the debate be now adjourned'.
My decision has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of this Bill. It is not for me to express any view upon that at all. My decision also has absolutely nothing to do with the composition of the Select Committee. Again, that has nothing to do with me. That is a matter for the House. I have to regard this as a procedural matter. I have to consider the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority.
I have come to the conclusion that, if I were to take the first alternative and put the Question on the motion at once, that would be wrong. That would be to take it upon myself to cause an immediate decision by the House. I think that the House should make this decision whether or not to decide at once itself, so I have decided to take the second choice. Therefore, I shall put the Question "That the debate he now adjourned" The debate is the debate on the composition of the Select Committee. It is on that and only that. That is the question which I think the House must decide. I must not decide it for the House by adopting the first alternative. I shall therefore put the question now "That the debate be now adjourned."

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the debate is adjourned, what happens to the motion?

Mr. Speaker: If the debate is adjourned, the debate upon the motion is adjourned and can continue subsequently.
The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned. Those in favour say "Aye"; to the contrary "No".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it, in which case the debate is now adjourned.

Hon. Members: No, No!

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the voices were collected.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government will, of course, provide some more time for this matter to be debated. I suggest that we should not debate it further today, because it will eat into a very busy programme. Certainly the Government will provide some more time to end the debate—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When?

Mr. Short: I do not know when, but we shall certainly do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact—

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mikardo, point of order.

Mr. Mikardo: Could I ask for your further guidance, Sir, because I am sure that we are not altogether clear? When there is the further debate to which my right hon. Friend has referred, will it be on the motion which we have just debated or on the Government's motion which is in identical terms?

Mr. Edward Short: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It will be on this one.
On the question of collecting the voices, I waited quite a long time. I put the Question twice and on one occasion it appeared that there were no Noes. However, this is a matter in which the Chair must be tolerant. If there is still some feeling among hon. Members that they want to vote on this question, then let them. This is a matter for me.
The Question is—

Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Question has been put to the House once and that it was quite clearly the will of the House that this debate should be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Lady in a moment. Under the Standing Order I must put the Question again.

Question put, That the debate be now adjourned:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Short.

Mrs. Renée Short: (seated and covered): I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that you had already put that Question

and that the House had decided that this debate should be adjourned. You are putting the Question for a third time.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that there was a certain amount of confusion. I think I took a right decision, but we shall see.

Mrs. Renée Short: (seated and covered): I must raise this point again, Mr. Speaker. You have already declared that—

The House having divided: Ayes 156, Noes 167.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[4.08 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Gilbert, Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Archer, Peter
Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Atkinson, Norman
Graham, Ted
Perry, Ernest


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Phipps, Dr Colin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Price C. (Lewisham W)


Bates, Alf
Hamling, William
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bidwell, Sydney
Harper, Joseph
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hatton, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hayman Mrs Helene
Roper, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Les
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Selby, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Carter, Ray
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sillars, James


Cartwright, John
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Clemitson, Ivor
Kerr, Russell
Sinclair, Sir George


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Neil
Small, William


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Lambie, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Conlan, Bernard
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Snape, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Luard, Evan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)




Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Cryer, Bob
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Drayson, Burnaby
Marks, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Watkins, David


Evans John (Newton)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkinson, John


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mikardo, Ian
Weetch, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Farr, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wellbeloved, James


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Welsh, Andrew


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Flannery, Martin
Nelson, Anthony
Whitlock, William


Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Oakes, Gordon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Freud Clement
Ogden, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Orbach, Maurice



Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Garrets, W. E. (Wallsend)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. John Ellis and


George, Bruce
Pardoe, John
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Berry, Hon Anthony


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.
Biffen, John


Alison, Michael
Bell, Ronald
Biggs-Davison, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Body, Richard




Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Onslow, Cranley


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hampson Dr Keith
Osborn, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Holland, Philip
Park, George


Brotherton, Michael
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Pattie, Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Burden, F. A.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Reid, George


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Canavan, Dennis
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carlisle, Mark
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kirk, Peter
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Clegg, Walter
Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cohen, Stanley
Lane, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Doig, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCartney, Hugh
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Dunlop, John
MacCormick, Iain
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
McCusker, H.
Stanley, John


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


English, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thompson, George


Eyre, Reginald
Mahon, Simon
Tinn, James


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marten, Neil
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fell Anthony
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wall, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter
Watt, Hamish


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Molyneaux, James
White, James (Pollok)


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Montgomery, Fergus
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Glyn Dr Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Winterton, Nicholas


Golding, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hon George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grocott, Bruce
Neave, Airey
Mr. Patrick Cormack and


Hall, Sir John
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: That means that the debate continues now.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the House has now expressed itself in two votes by a substantial majority and in one vote unanimously, would it not be appropriate to move "That the Question be now put"? We could then have a Division.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Price.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: Now that we are faced, Mr. Speaker, with quite a long debate about the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—a debate which could last until ten o'clock tonight or until such time as it is closed

—it might be wise to look into some of these arguments. It is quite appropriate that somebody like myself, who spent nearly two years as a member of the original Standing Committee on the Abortion Bill, should remind the House of the principles in respect of the Committee on the original Abortion Bill—principles which were adopted on that occasion, in 1966, when that Standing Committee was set up.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the original vote in 1966, when the Second Reading of the 1967 Abortion Bill took place, produced a quite overwhelming vote in favour of reforming the law on abortion. If on that occasion the proponents of abortion had claimed the right for the membership of the Committee to be exactly in proportion to that Second Reading vote, I am quite sure


that the 1967 Abortion Bill would have passed through the House very much more quickly than it did. But nothing of the kind took place.

Mr. Leo Abse: As I was one of the Members who voted for the Second Reading of that Bill in common with many others, I should like to say that we agreed to vote for the Second Reading on the understanding that the Bill would be fundamentally altered to prevent the abuses which unfortunately have arisen. Therefore, is not my hon. Friend's argument entirely specious, as so many of us who voted for it had qualifications and reservations, and, therefore, the composition of that Committee reflected all those who had voted, including those many who had voted with many reservations?

Mr. Price: I think that it is wrong for my hon. Friend to describe my argument as specious, as I am only in the foothills of it. I have not reached any plateau or peak of the argument. I regard myself as an expert on the twistings and turnings of the views on abortion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I have watched every point at which he has changed course over the years in this matter. I am an expert on his heterodox views on the matter. When I have finished my arguments, I assure him that he will be the last person in the House to say that I have been using an argument which is in any way specious—or any similar adjective.

Mr. Mikardo: When my hon. Friend advances further in his reply to our hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), will he take into account the fact that if it is true that on the first occasion some who voted for the Bill did so with reservations, that was equally true on the recent occasion?

Mr. Price: I could not agree more. I am sure that that is a very good point. If hon. Members are pondering the sort of point that they might like to make in the debate which lies ahead of us, I am sure that they will consider that to be a point which would be very important to make. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to join in what looks like being a long and very interesting debate and that they would wish to make such a point. I was

on a different point before I was interrupted.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman and I were both members of the original Standing Committee, but he will allow, surely, that since the House gave its verdict in 1967 there have been considerable changes, including the development of a racket in the private sector which has caused grave alarm. The Lane Committee has sat and reported, although the House has not had an opportunity to debate that report. All this was reflected in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which was given an overwhelming Second Reading. What is being questioned now is the will of the House itself.

Mr. Price: I am absolutely familiar with the various points which the hon. Gentleman has made. On the other hand, I am trying to keep myself within the confines of the motion before us now. No doubt if I were to stray into such general matters as abuses and so on, it is just possible that Mr. Speaker might call me to order. If I may return to my original point, I certainly promise the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) that later I shall go into those particular points.
My original point was that on the 1966 Bill there was a quite overwhelming majority in favour of its Second Reading. But the proponents of the Bill, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and his hon. Friends, of whom I numbered myself one, quite generously, in the interests of a proper debate taking in every aspect of the abortion argument, decided that they would not insist on anything like a numerical balance in the membership or the Standing Committee in 1966 which corresponded proportionately to the vote on Second Reading.
In fact, the proponents of the Bill, through all the usual channels—it went through somewhat more smoothly in those days than it seems to go nowadays—gave what one might call very loosely the anti-abortion lobby quite considerable representation on that Committee, which, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will remember, they used to the full throughout long days and, later, long nights of 1966 and 1967. It was only because in 1966–67 we had a unique


and extraordinarily long Session, running from the spring of one year to the autumn of the next, that the Bill ever passed through Parliament.
The House of Commons works on precedent. We respect precedent. We accept that, having done a thing in one particular way once, there is a very good argument for following roughly those lines when next we come upon the question. Here we came to a situation in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has pointed out, we had a substantial Second Reading vote supporting the Bill of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White). Those who supported that Bill did so for a variety of reasons. Some supported it because they were against abortions altogether. Others supported it because they were against abortions except in a very small number of medical cases where the life of the mother was in jeopardy. Others supported it in relation to looking after physical health but had grave doubts about the mental health aspects. Others supported it on health grounds but had great objection to the eugenic clause—and vice versa.
A vast number of those who went into the Lobby to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok, whom I am glad to see to my left this afternoon, did so for the very good reason that some quite scandalous abuses were taking place in the private sector and they wanted those matters cleaned up, and in no way did they support the various other parts of the Bill which purported to introduce such words as "grave" and "serious" into the Bill, and which put upon the doctor the onus of proving before a jury that his actions had been in good faith and properly undertaken. There was, therefore, a sort of balance.
What happened after that? There was a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing and, of course, the usual channels are very complicated in terms of Private Members' Bills of this kind. In fact, one of the troubles about the Government refusing to take on board the clearing up of abuses such as exist in the private sector of abortion is that—if I may use the phrase—we get our parliamentary knickers in the sort of twist that they are in today. If either

of the previous Governments had decided to clear up these abuses in the private sector—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are debating the selection of the Committee and not the general case of abortion, whether for or against it.

Mr. Price: I am, indeed, only too closely aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel absolutely certain that as I proceed, the thread of my argument will come back exactly to the selection of the Committee. In fact, that is what I was about to do just as you interrupted.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that whether he weaves a thousand threads in the course of today, nothing he does can stop us making a decision on this matter tonight and stopping the blatant delaying tactics by the miscellaneous group of wreckers in the Labour Party.

Mr. Price: We are in the middle of a debate in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has made his speech. We all listened to it with great care and noted his points. He has made certain accusations to which I do not want to reply at the moment, although I am sure that there are on the benches behind me other hon. Members who are thinking of the sort of thing they might be able to say in this debate and who may well take up the various accusations with which I do not for a moment agree.
As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened, after the Second Reading, the usual channels set to work to select a Select Committee, set up in rather unusual circumstances, in order to consider this Bill. As I understand it, the usual channels were the official usual channels—the two-party usual channels—and the unofficial usual channels—that is to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok and his most able lieutenant, or perhaps major-general-—I do not know which rank in this matter I ought to give him—who represents Pontypool.
As a result of this discussion, after some to-ing and fro-ing and lifting the numbers from 11 to 12, and then to 14 and then


15, the balance came out, on the kind of precedent to which this House is accustomed, fairly according to precedent.
What I am saying about the Committee is that we have here in our abortion precedents a far more proper precedent whereby the virulent opponents of abortion and the virulent proponents of abortion on occasions such as this can come together to produce a Select Committee which properly balances all the very fiercely held divisions of opinion within this House without getting too mathematical and neurotic about percentages and proportions, in the way that it seems is permitted by the usual channels, prompted perhaps by the hon. Member for Pontypool—I do not know; I was not privy to any of those usual channel discussions—and prompted perhaps by a feeling on the part of the official usual channels that these things should be done strictly according to precedent. Whatever the reason, it came out as it has done. The point I am making is that since we have this precedent of the generosity of the proponents of making abortion rather more free in 1966, there was a very good case on this Committee also for that same spirit of generosity, with a precedent to which this House so often generously responds.
I should like to come to what might be called the sex imbalance on this Committee. I do so with some trepidation because I am surrounded by a host of female witnesses who may be able to put this point a good deal better than I can, but I have some qualifications. I have some right to do so since my very brief speech—you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it lasted for no more than three minutes, as I promised—on Second Reading was devoted solely to this topic.
It is rather grotesque for 600 grown men—some of them very elderly, or at least getting on a bit—solemnly to pronounce on what women should do with their bodies. The difficulties that we are having with this Committee, I believe, were reflected in the selection of people to speak during the Second Reading. Of course, I make no criticism whatsoever of the selection of speakers, but as it turned out in the Second Reading on the Abortion Bill the women's voice in this House was sadly quashed. Many women

wished to speak in that debate but did not succeed because of the shortness of time on a Friday. If the pattern of membership on the Select Committee is to reflect that trend again, not only will the Select Committee be unbalanced from the point of view of the proper proportions of opinion in the House, but it will also have far too small a voice from the women in this House for all the reasons of which we are fully apprised, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) in her very able speech this afternoon.
I should like to respond, if I may do so without trespassing on the rules of order—because I think this is pertinent to the balance of the Committee—to the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. He put to me the point that we should not be in this procedural difficulty today were is not for the fact of the abuses in the private sector, and I very much agree with him. I wish that the administrative matters which the Minister of State announced on Second Reading had been put into effect seven or eight years ago.
But, even more than that, we had a Bill introduced into Parliament by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) in the February-October Parliament—the 1974 rump Parliament, if I may so describe it—which had the support of the Government and could have gone through this House had it not been killed by the most virulent supporters of the anti-abortion lobby. It was not the pro-abortion lobby which killed that excellent Bill, which could have gone through this House; it was the memebrs of the anti-abortion lobby, led by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who is not in the Chamber and does not seem to have been here for some time, and we have missed her in the debate. It is pertinent that it was that lobby, the violent, virulent, anti-abortion lobby, which was responsible for the fact that there are these abuses in the practice of abortion, which are quite rightly objected to by hon. Members on all sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This does not relate to the selection of the Committee.

Mr. Price: I agree. I put that point very much in passing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has been a very long time passing.

Mr. Price: I do not intend to trespass on your indulgence Mr. Deputy Speaker—if indeed I have been trespassing on it—for very much longer. But, if I may sum up in a single sentence, I think that the rigid mathematical basis of the composition of this Committee and the quite unjustifiable male domination of this Committee make it a quite unsatisfactory balance for a Select Committee. It is for that reason that I hope that when this question is put for decision, as I am sure it will be put either today or in the very near future, this selection, this balance of the Select Committee, will be turned down, so that we can get a very much better balance in future.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: One could accuse the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen who have attempted to wreck the Select Committee of a gross miscarriage of parliamentary procedure. It seems to me that we are witnessing a very real wrecking exercise on the part of certain hon. Members opposite. We are witnessing not only the quite legitimate use of wrecking tactics, but something that almost amounts to casting aspersions on a group of very distinguished hon. Members on both sides sides of the House. I would submit that the proposed membership of the Committee, which has been drawn up after a great deal of thought by many people, contains within it a combination of views, experience and expertise that can only serve this House and the country well in considering the matter under discussion.
I do not wish to transgress the rules of the House by debating the merits of the case for and against abortion, and I shall attempt to pass by a little more quickly perhaps than hon. Gentlemen opposite have done, because I believe that what the House wants and what the country wants is the Abortion Act to be considered by a Select Committee and proper and constructive recommendations to be made. I am glad that in that at least I carry with me every hon. Member in the Chamber at the moment.
I should like for a moment, because this is what we are debating, to look at

the composition of the proposed Select Committee. I am quite certain that, if one looks at it, one cannot come to any other conclusion than that it is balanced and sensible, and I should like to advance my reasons for saying that.
First of all, I was grieved by one remark made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger), when she referred to the fact that she represented women. Of course she does. We all do. She is elected by her constituents, as I am elected by mine, and in her constituency, as in mine, there are men and women, people of all ages. They choose to send her to this honourable House to represent them, as she does with diligence, great tenacity, and all the rest of it, because we are not debating party politics here. She is the representative of her constituents and I am the representative of mine, and all hon. Members represent their constituents, whatever their sex.
It would be a gross perversion of parliamentary practice if we said that merely because an issue concerned a particular section of the community, that section of the community alone should be represented on the Committee. Only this past week we had debates on, and references to the proposed composition of a Standing Committee of the House, and certain criticisms were made. Whatever view one takes of that issue, I am sure that every single hon. Member of the House would object most strongly if every member of the Standing Committee on the Industry Bill were a trade unionist, just as every hon. Member would object very strongly if none was a trade unionist.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are both male and female trade unionists, and can he give some examples of other cases in which only the female sex is involved, as is the situation with abortion?

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the paucity of his argument by his intervention, and here I must for a moment touch upon the subject under discussion. Many of us would say that this concerns the sanctity of human life and that every man and woman in this country has the right to an opinion on


that issue. [Interruption.] Also, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) says, there are male as well as female foetuses. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the Select Committee should be composed predominantly of hon. Lady Members of this House. What the Committee should reflect, and what I submit it does reflect, is the composition of the House and the variety of sincerely-held and contrasting views on this abortion issue. That is really what it is all about.
If we look at the composition of the Committee numerically, four of its 15 members—that is a much higher proportion than in the House as a whole—are women. I not only accept that but applaud it; I think it is a splendid thing. But if we look at the people who are on the Committee—I believe everybody present would agree that if we are debating whether or not this Committee is balanced, we must look at the composition and the individuals—nobody who has spent any time at all considering the issue of abortion and the way in which it has been debated in the House and in the country over the years could dispute the absolute right of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to be a member of it. He has spent a great deal of his parliamentary life, and devoted much of his considerable energy and intellect, to discussing and debating this matter. It is right that he who has devoted so much time to it should be on the Select Committee.

Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: I have always found the hon. Member a reasonable man. If he cannot accept the argument that there should be more women on the Committee, will he accept the argument that it should consist equally of those who are for abortion reform and those who are against it so that a balanced argument can take place—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: No.

Mrs. Colquhoun: —because the situation is that 11 members of the Select Committee are against reform and only four are in favour.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is not so.

Mrs. Colquhoun: That is another reason why I and my hon. Friends are so

distressed. This will be a deplorably undemocratic Committee.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful at least for the opening words of the hon. Lady's intervention. Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to see her name on the list of Members of the Select Committee instead of one of the other hon. Ladies, but she is not on it. It has been decided that she should not be a member. She has alleged that there has been a cooking of the Committee.

Mrs. Colquhoun: Rigging.

Mr. Cormack: Very well, I am prepared to delete "cooking" and substitute "rigging". The hon. Member is sadly mistaken in her allegation, because the Committee should reflect the feeling of the House of Commons as expressed in the Division Lobby when the Bill was debated some time ago. It is indisputable that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members, irrespective of their party and their religious or other convictions, tend to think that the Act needs substantial amendment. There may well be a great deal of debate as to how it should be amended, but the consensus as expressed in the Division Lobby was that there should be substantial amendment of the Act. It was also the opinion of the House that the best way of achieving a balance rather than a hasty conclusion to the various debates and deliberations was to have a Select Committee rather than a Standing Committee.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The majority of hon. and right hon. Members voted neither for nor against the Bill. On the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, surely the Committee should consist of a majority of those who abstained. A number of hon. and right hon. Members did not vote against the Bill because they knew it would go to a Select Committee and they believed that to be the correct procedure.

Mr. Cormack: That intervention is not entirely worthy of the hon. Member's considerable knowledge of parliamentary procedure. If hon. Members chose, for one reason or another, not to vote, if they chose not to be here because they had a constituency commitment on that Friday or, in the case of some, because


they did not want to be here, that was their free choice. They were able to exercise that choice by abstaining or absenting themselves. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who has done his research with his usual diligence, that some of the proposed members of the Select Committee did abstain.

Mr. Ian Campbell: It is not the case that of the four lady Members on the Committee two voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and two did not vote? Does that not mean that of the four not one actually committed herself to support the Bill?

Mr. Cormack: With his helpful, sensible and constructive intervention the hon. Member has anticipated part of my argument. Perhaps later I might deal with his point.
Let us look at the next name on the list of selection. It is the hon. Lady the Member for Warley—East or West—who is a highly respected Member and a Government Whip and is known in the Midlands—and I know because I come from the Midlands—for her independence of view and her strong judgment. I suggest that none of her female colleagues on the Government Benches could have the remotest objection to being represented by the hon. Member for Warley. I have debated matters with her on television and in other places, and I can assure every hon. Member that she will put whatever case she chooses to put with conviction and eloquence.

Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Memsaid that he came from the Midlands. I used to represent a constituency in the West Midlands and I know that my hon. Friend represents West Bromwich, West, not Warley.

Mr. Cormack: I apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) if I got her constituency wrong, but there are 635 MPs and we are not always as perfect in our knowledge as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).
The next name on the list is my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden). He falls into the same category as the hon. Member for

Pontypool. He has devoted a considerable amount of his time and talents in this House and outside to campaigning on this issue.

Mrs. Colquhoun: He has never had children.

Mr. Cormack: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun). [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because she does her duty with diligence and good sense. She says that my hon. Friend has never had children. My hon. Friend has fathered children and is capable of so doing and he is fully entitled to a place on the Select Committee.

Mr. Clement Freud: I wonder whether the hon. Member would care to deal next with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who has a meeting and should hear what the hon. Member has to say.

Mr. Cormack: I shall deal in just a minute, as the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has courteously suggested, with the hon. Member for the triple-barrelled constituency of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). Nobody in this House could for a moment say anything other than that he has the most impeccable credentials for being a member of the Select Committee. He is known throughout the country as a pioneer on questions of social reform. It was he who brought before the House the first Abortion Bill which is now the potential subject of this Select Committee. If he needed anything else to commend him to the House, the distinguished, brilliant and scintillating speech that he made on the Second Reading of the latest Bill would have indicated his absolute right to be a member of any Committee, be it Standing or Select.

Mr. David Steel: It is hardly for me to interrupt the hon. Member when he is in this vein, and I am grateful to him for enabling me to hear these warm tributes. Will he accept that one of the points that some of us who are troubled by the motion feel is that since the Bill's promoters wanted to secure a consensus Bill it is desirable that the Select Committee should be largely a consensus


Committee while reflecting every viewpoint? Those who have objected to the motion are using normal parliamentary procedure. I would have thought that the onus lay on the Government to provide that the motion could be debated with amendments in the normal way late at night. We are now being asked to accept the motion or nothing.

Mr. Cormack: That is a very valid point, but we are by the will of the House debating this motion, and, therefore, I must address my remarks to it. We are debating the composition of the Select Committee as set out in the Order Paper, and it is to that, and that alone, that I am addressing my remarks.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman might mention a well-known game in which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) participates. One of the rules of that game concerns repetition. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is becoming somewhat repetitious in his praise. Another rule of the game suggests that he should now sit down and allow a speaker from the Labour benches to take over.

Mr. Cormack: With an air of total non-partisan impartiality, I am talking about the attributes and not about the defects of hon. Members in all parts of the House. How I can be accused of repetition by praising the hon. Gentleman, having praised the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, I do not know.
I now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). I am delighted, as is every hon. Member, to see her in the Chamber.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is in difficulties now.

Mr. Cormack: On the contrary, by her vigilance and constant attendance in this Chamber, by the flashes of inspiration which she brings to our deliberations, she is entirely qualified to be a member of this or any other Select or Standing Committee. No one on the Opposition benches could have anything other than the utmost confidence in her total competence to deal with any of the intricate matters which may arise. She brings to the task of deliberation the forensic mind of a trained barrister.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman must surely be aware, having perused the amendments, that the whole House shares his opinion of the forensic qualities of the hon. Lady, because none of the amendments suggests her removal from the Committee.

Mr. Cormack: I am glad to have that warm, unanimous endorsement of the sentiments which I have just expressed. The hon. Gentleman and I have often, in a playful way, crossed swords on certain matters, but have supported each other on others. My rejoinder to him is that part of my hon. Friend's qualification to be on the Committee is that she is part of the balance of a balanced team. The team would lose in its balance if she remained on and certain other hon. Members came off. I am certain that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree with that.
We now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). Nobody can suggest for a moment that he has not earned his place on the Select Committee. He is far more capable than any other hon. Member of discussing at length any subject that is the cause of concern, be it national or local. He will be a counterweight.

An Hon. Member: With friends like him, the hon. Gentleman does not need enemies.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend would be a counterweight to those who would perhaps expedite too hastily, in the view of some hon. Members, the proceedings of the Committee. With my hon. Friend on the Committee, we can have a total assurance that every aspect of this many-sided, deep and complex problem will be discussed with due deliberation and concern. I believe that my hon. Friend, who so ably wound up the debate three weeks ago, has earned his place on the Committee.
We now come to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). She is universally regarded as one of the most able female politicians in the House. She has sat in the House for many years, and has served it well. All the causes which she has embraced, she has embraced with a due sense of mission and moderation, an unusual combination. She deserves a place on the Committee.
We now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who is a distinguished Roman Catholic. Nobody could deny the right of the Roman Catholic Church to have one or two members on the Committee, because many Members are Roman Catholics. Coupled with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions merely prolong speeches. I am good for another couple of hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope not.

Mr. Cormack: Your implied aspersion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, grieves me considerably. I had thought, from the attention with which you were obviously following the proceedings, that you were hanging upon every word and hoping that there would be many more to come.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, I couple the hon. Gentleman with whom I was proud to stand at the Table a little while ago, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). He is a devout and distinguished Roman Catholic.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has missed two hon. Members out.

Mr. Cormack: I will come back to them. It is appropriate that I should pair the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. Nobody can deny the right of the Roman Catholic Church to have distinguished Members on the Committee.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to fall foul of him when he is dishing out kind words, but I am not aware that the Roman Catholic Church put up candidates in the last General Election. Hon. Members are here as Labour or Conservative Members or as members of other parties. If people hold a view on a non-party matter, they may hold it for a variety of reasons, but if my party had a line on this problem with which I disagreed I would vote against it, as I have voted against it in the past on matters which I regard as matters of conscience.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman merely underlines his own credentials for being on the Committee. I made similar remarks when talking about the presence of women on the Committee. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will not disagree that there are a goodly number of Members who are professing and devout Roman Catholics, as he is. This is an issue of conscience and not party politics. Because the Roman Catholic Church has a very strong, definite and, I believe, in many ways commendable line on this subject, it is right that there should be Roman Catholics on the Committee to ensure the balance of the Committee and the balance of views. It is in that context only that I refer to the hon. Member's religious beliefs and to the beliefs of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. I express pleasure that they are on the Committee. The Committee would be the poorer without them. It will be the richer for their participation in its debates, which must of necessity be long and detailed and deal with the many complex aspects of this deeply human subject.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise us what we can do to protect ourselves against the ersatz eloquence of the hon. Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I myself have spent a lot of time wondering about that.

Mr. Cormack: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is the last person to ask for that sort of advice. If I have learnt anything of the art of ersatz eloquence and of the ability to hold the House enthralled, it is because I sat for four years on the Government Benches while so many able practitioners in the art displayed their talents from the Opposition benches.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Gentleman is too kind.

Mr. Cormack: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I suggest that every remark that I have made has been entirely in order and has in no way detracted from the reputation of the House or from any one of its individual Members.
In going through the list I must refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). Of course, on any


Committee on which he sits he will bring his own highly individual and considerable talents.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Yes, individual.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman echoes my very word. How splendid it is that my hon. Friend should have individual talents and that we should have such an idiosyncratic member of the Committee. On many of the moral issues that have been debated in the House he has taken an extremely forthright line. I choose my words with care. I remember the long debates that took place, largely at the instigation of my hon. Friend, on vasectomy. He showed the House at that time—[Interruption.] It is often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I sometimes believe that evil is in the ears of the listener. No one who witnessed the feasts of eloquence which emanated from my hon. Friend when he stood at the corner seat below the Gangway could say that he has not established a real right to sit on the Committee.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: A short time ago the hon. Gentleman said that he always chooses his words carefully. I remind him that he began his speech by saying that he would pass by quicker than my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). In fact, he has already taken longer. First, he has not carried out his promise to complete his remarks within a shorter time than was taken by my hon. Friend. Therefore, he does not choose his words as carefully as he thinks he does.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have passed by on the other side. Unlike the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, I have not spent a great deal of time talking of or alluding to the merits of abortion. I have devoted almost all of my remarks to the composition of the Committee. That is the subject of the debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We have plenty of time.

Mr. Cormack: Yes, as my hon. Friend reminds me, there is plenty of time. It is a great help to have my hon. Friend behind me at this stage. He has reminded me that we have plenty of time and that we can debate the composition of the

Committee until 10 o'clock tonight if necessary. I give the House an earnest promise that I will sit down by nine o'clock.
We now come to the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman). The hon. Lady has been a Member for only a short time, but in the time she has graced us by her presence—I use those words deliberately and carefully—she has shown herself not only to be a master of debate and someone who is able quickly to absorb the complexities of an intricate subject but as someone who brings a high mind and pleasant presence to any Committee on which she sits or to any activity in which she engages. Therefore, it would be totally wrong that the hon. Lady should be removed from the Committee. I appreciate that no one has suggested that she should be removed. I suggest that she is a part of that rich pattern of balance that goes to make up the Committee.

Mrs. Helene Hayman: Some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and the manner in which they have been phrased, reinforce my fears about the male chauvinism that exists within the House. I return to what the hon. Gentleman said a little earlier when he was talking about the people who are trying to wreck the Committee. He suggested that they are people who are resentful in some way because they are not on the Committee themselves. As a member of the Committee—it was with some difficulty that I came to be a member—I believe very strongly that the composition is not satisfactory, even though my graceful presence, as the hon. Gentleman described it, could adorn it. I make the point forcefully that some members of the Committee are not happy with it as well as those outside the Committee.

Mr. Cormack: I am sure that when the hon. Lady reflects upon her opening remarks in her intervention she will realise that I can hardly be accused of male chauvinism. After all, I played a modest but public part in supporting the claim of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to be where she is so rightly installed at this moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has defended himself enough now. Perhaps he will return to his catalogue.

Mr. Cormack: Yes, indeed I will. The only thing that grieves me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I cannot extol upon your own many virtues in going through this catalogue.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Try.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend asks me to try, but that would be out of order. I think it can be said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are all delighted that you are in the Chair at this moment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that had it not been for the fact that we are having this excellent debate and my hon. Friend's excellent contribution we might have had to wait for many weeks in suspense without knowing whether or not the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) would be able to serve on the Committee? Further, is my hon. Friend aware that the value of this debate is that we can make a decision here and now and either let her get on with the work or stop her?

Mr. Cormack: As we would expect, that is a most constructive intervention. The very reason that I and my hon. Friends shouted "No" was that when the Lord President indicated at the Dispatch Box that Government time would be made available for an adjourned debate he was quite unable to say when it would take place. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman for that. I appreciate the difficulties under which he has to operate. The fact is that we are having a debate now and, as my hon. Friend has reminded me, we have plenty of time.
When the Lord President was at the Dispatch Box—and we listened carefully to what he had to say—he was not able for the best possible reasons to indicate when we could resume the adjourned debate. That is what prompted us to call a Division. Many Labour Members entered the "No" Lobby. As I stood outside I said to my fellow Teller that there could not be a broader and more splendid cross-section of the House than came out of that Lobby.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: A spectrum, perhaps.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend assists me by adding to my vocabulary.
I return to the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield. When she intervened she said that she did not feel that the Committee was balanced. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to express her opinion in the Lobby tonight. Perhaps she will be able to do so on her feet in a little time. It seems that the hon. Lady is too modest. Any Committee of which she is a member cannot be underrepresented as far as her sex is concerned.

Mrs. Hayman: Oh!

Mr. Cormack: I am sorry that the lion. Lady takes these well-meaning remarks in such a churlish manner. I can assure her that they are meant sincerely.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This is an extremely serious debate. It is a matter that concerns not just the Members of this House but every woman in the country. To have this superficial claptrap is a disgrace to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that I am able to rule on is whether the hon. Gentleman is in order or out of order. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. Charles Irving: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dun-woody) referred to women's being concerned. Is she suggesting that in this matter men play no part?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) aware that many of us who voted did so with the express desire of seeing the Committee get on with the job and that many of us are concerned?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman thinks, knows or believes is not my business—for which I am duly grateful.

Mr. Cormack: We have heard many things from the Chair but never such a fervent prayer.
I am in no way delaying proceedings on the Bill. We are debating the composition of the Committee. The debate on the Bill, be it in Standing Committee, Select Committee or any other Committee, cannot take place until the Committee is set up. The Committee cannot be set up until a vote is taken tonight. In the same way as hon. Members who put down the motions that led to the debate, I am doing no more than exercising my parliamentary rights and those of my hon. Friends.
Let us come to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—

Dr. M. S. Miller: Before the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—for whom I have a great respect—continues with this charade, which seems to be a cross between Leonard Sachs's "Good Old Days" and Hughie Green's "Opportunity Knocks", will he realise that this is a serious matter? He is treating the subject with considerable flippancy and levity and not imbuing it with the seriousness it deserves.

Mr. Cormack: To talk about the merits of colleagues on both sides of the House is hardly being flippant. If some hon. Members have listened to my remarks with good nature and good humour and have expressed that by the odd laugh, that is not my fault.
It is important that a Committee to discuss a Bill of this nature should have among its members someone with a detailed medical knowledge. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), representing as he does his constituents and not the medical profession, will bring to the proceedings the cumulative wisdom and experience of many years as a practising doctor. To remove him would be to diminish in significance the composition of the Committee and would be scandalous.
I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). He has been in the forefront of many of the more enlightened social movements, and any group of hon. Members from the Opposition benches which did not include my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking would be the poorer. His membership is entirely justified.
I come now to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White). Who can say that the promoter of the Bill, who has done such a signal service and has sacrificed a great deal, is not entitled to a place on the Select Committee? I remember seeing him in a corridor of the House, surrounded by thousands of letters from all over the country, attempting to deal with them without the proper secretarial assistance we all should have. He of all people, the servant of the House in bringing before us this measure and using his good fortune in the Ballot for that purpose, is fully entitled to a place on the Committee.
What Select Committee would be complete without a father figure? I come finally to the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), whose skill and ministerial experience, if not without equal, is not excelled on the Government benches. He is an elder statesman of vision and moderation who will be able to contribute a great deal to the Committee's deliberations.
I begin to get the feeling that I may perhaps have said enough about the merits of the many members of the Committee to convince the House beyond peradventure that its composition could not be bettered. I rest my case there. We have here 15 hon. and right hon. Members, four of whom are women. They represent a cross-section of opinion and they come from all classes of society and all walks of life. They represent both sexes and have eloquence, skill, grace and dignity. No better Committee could be submitted to the House for its approval, and it would be a shame and a disgrace if any members of the Committee were criticised and removed. I hope that their names will remain properly on the Order Paper, that the Committee will soon begin its valuable work, that the country will see that this subject has been treated by these hon. Members with proper concern, and that we shall have some sensible amendments to the Abortion Act.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question out, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mrs. Colquhoun: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that under Standing Order No. 30 it is an infringement of the right of the minority to propose that the Question be now put, because there is a minority attitude on the Government benches which the filibustering has prevented from being heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In reply to that point of order, the House itself will decide whether the Question will be put, but when the Question is moved the Chair has discretion whether to accept it. I accepted the motion, and the House will now decide whether or not the Question will be put.

Mrs. Jeger: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 30 the question whether the Question be now put rests with the Chair. If it appears to the Chair that such a motion is an abuse or an infringement of the

rights of the minority, it is for the Chair—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. By Standing Orders I now have to put the Question.
The Question is, That the Question be now put. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Pavitt and Mr. Stoddart.
There being no Tellers for the Noes, I declare that the Ayes have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not able to take a point of order when the House has just decided that the Question should now be put.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 125.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Delargy, Hugh
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Alison, Michael
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Archer, Peter
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Doig, Peter
Hatton, Frank


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Havers, Sir Michael


Banks, Robert
Dunlop, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Beith, A. J.
Dunn, James A.
Henderson, Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Durant, Tony
Heseltine, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert


Benyon, W.
Elliott, Sir William
Holland, Philip


Berry, Hon Anthony
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hooley, Frank


Biffen, John
English, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Eyre, Reginald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Body, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hunter, Adam


Bowden. A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fell, Anthony
James, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jessel, Toby


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Buchanan, Richard
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jopling, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Judd, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Canavan, Dennis
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kershaw, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Ginsburg, David
Kimball, Marcus


Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kirk, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Golding, John
Lamond, James


Cockcroft, John
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Cohen, Stanley
Goodhew, Victor
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Coleman, Donald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lawson, Nigel


Cope, John
Gray, Hamish
Leadbitter, Ted


Cordle, John H.
Griffiths, Eldon
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cormack, Patrick
Grocott, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Corrie, John
Grylls, Michael
Lloyd, Ian


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hall, Sir John
Luce, Richard


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hannam, John
McCartney, Hugh




MacCormick, Iain
Oakes, Gordon
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


McCrindle, Robert
O'Halloran, Michael
Speed, Keith


McCusker, H.
Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Macfarlane, Neil
Osborn, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Owen, Dr David
Sproat, Iain


Mackenzie, Gregor
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stainton, Keith


Mackintosh, John P.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stanbrook, Ivor


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mahon, Simon
Parry, Robert
Stokes, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Pendry, Tom
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marten, Neil
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Norman


Mates, Michael
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thompson, George


Maude, Angus
Raison, Timothy
Tinn, James


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tomlinson, John


Mawby, Ray
Reid, George
Tomney, Frank


Mayhew, Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townsend, Cyril D.


Mendelson, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wakeham, John


Miller, Hat (Bromsgrove)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


Mills, Peter
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Weatherill, Bernard


Molyneaux, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Wells, John


Monro, Hector
Ross, William (Londonderry)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
White, James (Pollok)


Moonman, Eric
Ryman, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sainsbury, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Shepherd, Colin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Neave, Airey
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Younger, Hon George


Neubert, Michael
Silvester, Fred



Newton, Tony
Sims, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noble, Mike
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Normanton, Tom
Small, William
Mr. Teddy Taylor.


Nott, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freud, Clement
Orbach, Maurice


Bates, Alf
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ovenden, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Pardoe, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr John
Park, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Bradley, Tom
Graham, Ted
Penhaligon, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Perry, Ernest


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Richardson, Miss Jo


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Roderick, Caerwyn


Carter, Ray
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Janner, Greville
Rose, Paul B.


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sedgemore, Brian


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Selby, Harry


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cunningham. Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sillars, James


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lambie, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lipton, Marcus
Snape, Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Marks, Kenneth
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoddart, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mikardo, Ian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.







Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Wellbeloved, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Watkins, David
Welsh, Andrew



Watkinson, John
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Watt, Hamish
Whitlock, William
Mr. Christopher Price and


Weitzman, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That Mr. Leo Abse, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Anthony Fell, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Dr. Miller, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James White, and Mr. Frederick Willey be members of the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without challenging your ruling, may I ask for a word of explanation, within the rules of order, on behalf of many hon. Members, who understood that the previous vote of the House was very much in favour of a wide debate on the principle involved in the setting up of the Select Committee as well as its membership. We heard only two speeches, one from each side, the second lasting 43 minutes and being a recital of the names of the 15 hon. Members who were effectively appointed to the Committee. At least a dozen hon. Members wished to speak in the debate. I wonder, therefore, on what grounds the Chair chose to accept the closure so early.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members must realise that whoever is in the Chair must take the decision. The House, in its wisdom or otherwise, decides whether the Question is to be put. I decided that there had been two speeches of considerable length, one from each side. I am not required to give reasons to the House why I accept the closure.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are there not considerations with regard to the protection of minority views in the House which the Chair must always be careful to have in mind, whether or not it says that it has those considerations in mind?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House cannot debate my decision to accept the closure, at least not at this moment.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I properly interpret what has happened today, which was new to most hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may seek to raise a point of order but he may not interpret what has happened.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to assume, from the rulings given by the Chair, that it is possible for a Select Committee to be imposed by a snap vote of this House, whether or not in collusion with other channels in the House, rather than as a result of the judgment that emerges from discussion and debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is an old custom here that the result of a Division is accepted by the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I assure hon. Gentlemen that there has been no collusion, apart from that of back benchers? The first duty of the House is to protect the majority against exploitation by the minority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are beginning to reach the point where hon. Members are using alleged points of order to argue with each other.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I in order in asking for your guidance as to how long the next debate will be allowed to go on, since we have already lost about two hours out of the time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My business is to begin the next debate.

Orders of the Day — LOTTERIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is less than a month since the House had some discussion about the—

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some hon. Members would like to hear what my hon. Friend has to say in the debate. Is it possible to ask hon. Members to be quiet as they leave the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I think that we should all like to hear the Under-Secretary of State.

Dr. Summerskill: It is less than a month since the House had some discussion about the Government's proposals for legislation on lotteries—although that was on the occasion of the Second Reading debate on the Private Member's Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I hope that this recent debate has not taken away hon. Members' enthusiasm for this discussion and that the House will bear with me while I explain the history of the Bill.
The existing law on lotteries is contained in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which consolidated earlier legislation on this subject. The fundamental principle of the law is that all lotteries are unlawful, subject to certain well-defined exceptions. The exceptions are three: small lotteries held as an incident of an entertainment—this covers the raffle at a church fête or cricket club dinner; private lotteries where the sale of tickets is restricted to people working or living in the same place, or to members of a society or club; and small public lotteries, which concern the House today, promoted on behalf of a society conducted wholly or mainly for charitable, sporting, cultural or other disinterested purposes. This kind of lottery is strictly controlled,

in particular by financial restrictions which limit the turnover to £750, the maximum single prize to £100 and the maximum price of a ticket to 5p. These limits date from the mid-1950s and are clearly far more restrictive today than they were 20 years ago. On the ground of simple inflation alone, there is now a very strong and urgent case for a change in the law.
In 1971 an indepartmental working party of officials was set up to consider lotteries. Its report was published in December 1973. In considering its brief, the working party looked at the whole field of the law relating to lotteries and related competitions, and it made a number of recommendations over this field, dealing with both small and large lotteries. In relation to small public lotteries, the working party recommended a five-fold increase in the financial limits, together with an increase in the present restriction on expenses of 10 per cent. of the proceeds. It also suggested that local authorities should be allowed to run small lotteries of this kind, and that the Gaming Board should be given direct responsibility for the registration of local authority lotteries and a supervisory function over the controls placed on other lotteries.
Since the working party reported, the Home Office has given very close consideration to the recommendations and to comments received from interested people and organisations, with a view to initiating legislation to deal with small lotteries. We fully appreciate that the present Bill is concerned only with small lotteries. I do not think that this is a fault. The question of large lotteries must come later. As was said when the working party's report was published, these issues
reveal sharp conflicts of interest and raise large questions of moral and social judgment.
They involve, for example, possible changes in the football pools. Much more public discussion will be needed, and over a wide field. But the future of small lotteries can, in our view, be dealt with separately. It is most important, in the Government's view, that we should do something for small lotteries now. I appreciate that some hon. Members hold strong moral views.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not the Under-Secretary of State agree


that if local authorities are asked to set up machinery to carry out small lotteries for very small sums in revenue at this stage, it will be very difficult for them afterwards to move into the field of larger lotteries?

Dr. Summerskill: The local authorities are not being asked to do anything. They are being given permission to do something if they so decide.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The thin edge of the wedge.

Dr. Summerskill: Secondly, as I shall endeavour to point out, there will be no difficulty in considering larger lotteries as a separate aspect of legislation. It is a complex aspect and is separate from what the Bill is trying to do, which is to increase the limits of existing lotteries run by charities, sporting organisations, and so on, and at the same time to make it possible for local authorities to have lotteries if they so wish on a basis of parity with the other lotteries.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Before my hon. Friend leaves the historical background to the Bill, will she explain why, if this interdepartmental report was ready in December 1973 and has been considered by the Home Office since then, and if, as she says, the Bill is now considered by the Government to be necessary, there was no mention of the Bill in the Queen's Speech or in either of the manifestos on which the Labour Party fought the 1974 General Eelections?

Dr. Summerskill: Not every piece of Government legislation is necessarily put in the party manifesto and mentioned specifically in the Queen's Speech. But that does not detract from the fact that this legislation has been in the Government's mind ever since the right hon. Member for Crosby brought in his first Bill last year, when I said in Committee that we were not opposed to the principle of local authority lotteries, and certainly on the other aspect of the Bill we have received many representations from sports interests and charity interests to raise the limits on the lotteries which are at present in operation.
I appreciate that some hon. Members have strong moral and ethical objections to any kind of lottery or to gambling,

and I respect those feelings. But it is the case that many deserving causes and activities have relied very much on money derived from lotteries run under Section 45 of the 1963 Act. It is also the case that the financial limits in that section—5p for a ticket, £100 for a prize, and £750 turnover—prevent lotteries for a worthwhile purpose giving as much help as they did in the past. There is an immediate need, therefore, for relief of the type provided in this Bill. At the same time, the scheme of the Bill is not inconsistent with later legislation which could produce a coherent law relating all the different facets of long-odds gambling in a sensible and unified structure.
As for the Bill itself, some of the details repeat the existing law contained in the 1963 Act, but there are three major changes. First, the financial limits are increased. Secondly, local authorities are included. Thirdly, a new system of registration involving the Gaming Board is introduced.
The financial limits in the existing law are quite unrealistic in terms of modern money values. Therefore, we propose substantial increases. The Bill provides that lotteries shall be held not more frequently than weekly, and that for any lottery held more frequently than once a month, the limit on the total value of tickets sold will now be £10,000, with a maximum single prize of £1,000 and a ticket price of 25p. If lotteries are held at less frequent intervals, the turnover and prize limits will be higher—£20,000 turnover and a £1,500 prize for a lottery held not more frequently than monthly, and £40,000 turnover and a prize of £2,000 for a lottery held not more frequently than quarterly. These higher limits for lotteries held monthly or less frequently, although of general application, may be of special use to a local authority which does not wish to promote a lottery more frequently than once a month.
The existing limitation on expenses of 10 per cent. of turnover has been relaxed. It has been made clear to us that this is unrealistic in the circumstances of today. Lotteries with a turnover of less than £5,000 may in future appropriate up to 30 per cent. of the proceeds. Those above £5,000, which have to be registered with the Gaming Board—I shall come back to this again in a moment—are limited to


5 per cent. or such larger amount, but not exceeding 30 per cent., as the board may authorise.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is it correct to say that a local authority which wishes to exercise to the fullest degree the powers granted in the Bill will be able to promote lotteries in a year to the value of £500,000 and spend £1,000 a week on the promotion of gambling?

Dr. Summerskill: They will not be allowed to operate lotteries with a turnover of less than £5,000.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: But, in the course of a year, what will be the total amount that they can raise through lotteries?

Dr. Summerskill: I will calculate that and let the hon. Gentleman know later in the debate.
There is justification for these alterations, in that expenses do not necessarily increase in proportion to turnover. Some expenses—staff costs, office rents and other expenses—are static and, therefore, constitute a higher proportion of the proceeds of small lotteries. The provisions in the Bill should allow sufficient flexibility for everyone while preventing excessive profits for the promoters of large lotteries.
I may say that the Secretary of State is given the power to vary the financial limits in the Bill by order. This should avoid the need for substantive legislation if further alteration seems necessary at some future date.
I come to the major change of principle, which is the inclusion of local authorities. All local authorities will be able to promote lotteries within the same financial limits as those applying to societies. They will, however, have to be registered with the Gaming Board regardless of the size of turnover. The Government made their attitude on this proposal quite clear during the two Second Reading debates and the Committee stage of the Bills promoted by the right hon. Member for Crosby. We accept that local authorities should be allowed to enter the market but only if they are kept to the same limits and conditions as apply to the voluntary societies, on the basis of parity of opportunity.
I shall not go into this in much detail. The House is familiar with the arguments. To give local authorities a greater latitude would be potentially disastrous for many charitable and sporting organisations. It would not lead to the massive injections of revenue which have been imagined. It would have serious implications for the control of gambling. Under the Bill local authorities will be allowed to compete on the same terms to raise a limited amount of money for specific purposes. There is no question of the Bill being a substitute for rates or an alternative method of financing local government. But there may be certain projects or purposes to which a local authority cannot give priority, for which money is clearly needed and for which there is a public demand.
The Bill includes new provisions for the control of lotteries. First, societies which wish to promote lotteries will still be required to register with the local authority. Then, if the expected turnover exceeds £5,000 they will have to register the lottery scheme with the Gaming Board, which will have the power to refuse or to revoke a registration in certain circumstances. Local authorities will be required to have any lottery scheme of their own approved by the whole authority, and all such schemes will then have to be registered with the Gaming Board. The board will have the power to require the provision of accounts and any other information in relation to lottery schemes. The Bill will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations governing provisions to be included in lottery schemes and the promotion of lotteries. These provisions should ensure a degree of uniformity in the nature and conduct of lotteries, as well as introducing a proper degree of skilled surveillance for the larger lotteries permitted under the Bill.
I should like to refer briefly to Clause 14 of the Bill, the primary purpose of which is to amend Section 43 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. Section 43 permits a small lottery to be promoted as an incident of an entertainment, such as a bazaar or a dinner. Under that section, money prizes are not permitted, but up to £10 may be spent on purchasing prizes in the lottery. The interdepartmental working party recommended that the limit of £10 be increased


to £50. This will be achieved by Clause 14.
It is important that I say more about the purposes of the Bill. Its main objective is to restore the potential of the provisions on smal lotteries for the many voluntary bodies which benefit from—and in some cases exist on—lottery revenue. This is urgently needed. The position of many organisations would be jeopardised if this reform were to be delayed. As a significant consequence of this we expect that the Bill will prove particularly valuable to football clubs. The League clubs are shortly to be faced with extra expenditure as a result of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill, a vitally important piece of legislation which I hope the House will approve. The vast majority of these clubs already run lotteries, and we estimate that they should be able to double their existing revenue—said to be around £2 million—as a result of the Bill. This should go a good way towards meeting any new costs. The increase in revenue would be almost immediate. The machinery is there.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is the hon. Lady saying that the existing lotteries run by the football clubs are being run under Section 5 with a limited turnover of £750? If that limited turnover is to go up from £750 to £40,000, why does she assume that it would merely double their revenue?

Dr. Summerskill: That estimate is a cautious one; we do not want to be too optimistic. It is the estimate which the football clubs have accepted. Obviously, there will be variations in what the clubs bring in: some are much better organised and much bigger than others.

Mr. Clemitson: My hon. Friend has referred to revenue from lotteries run by football clubs being substantially increased. She said that the Bill would permit, for the first time, local authorities to run lotteries on the same basis as other organisations. Does she anticipate that the total amount of gambling as a result of the Bill will be increased or does she anticipate that people will spend more on certain types of gambling and less on others?

Dr. Summerskill: That is a matter of opinion. I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the possibility that lotteries run by local authorities will take money from existing gambling.

Mr. Clemitson: With respect, my hon. Friend has just said that the anticipated revenue from football clubs running lotteries would increase considerably.

Dr. Summerskill: We seem to be at cross-purposes. If the legal limits are increased, this will clearly help the football club lotteries. The total effect on the overall gambling scene remains to be seen. It is a fluctuating business and we cannot make definite predictions. The increase to football clubs would be almost immediate.
I draw the attention of the House to the provisions of Clause 13 of the Bill. In general it will be necessary for regulations containing detailed conditions to be made before the various sections of the Act can be brought into operation. But Clause 13 is an interim provision which will permit societies promoting lotteries to increase ticket prices to 25p, individual prizes to £1,000 and turnover to £5,000 as soon as it is brought into operation by an order under Clause 18. That could be soon after Royal Assent. It should help football clubs.
While acknowledging that the Bill is limited in scope, the Government regard it as a practical measure for which there is urgent need and which would not be at variance with a wider reform of the law at a later date.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I hope the hon. Lady is not going to sit down without informing the House of the meaning of Schedule 3. During the Committee stage of the Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) the hon. Lady made the point that lotteries conducted under his Bill would be subject to pool betting duty. I am not a lawyer, but my right hon. Friend is. He gives me to understand that the effect of Schedule 3 will be to remove pool betting duty from lotteries conducted under this Bill.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) is perfectly correct in his understanding.
I commend the Bill to the House.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Lady has moved the Second Reading with competence and in a factual and neutral style. I believe that she should have struck one or two notes which I should like to strike in making a proper appraisal of the Bill.
First, there is the recognition of the social background to the Bill. The Interdepartmental Working Party on Lotteries said that there was
no country, certainly in the western world, where the opportunities for gambling are so prolific as they are here.
This situation gives rise to the staggering annual gambling turnover of £2,500 million. There is a net annual loss to gamblers, some of them compulsive gamblers, of about £800 million. No appraisal of the Bill, certainly no appraisal by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), would be complete without due recognition of this sobering reality.
Secondly, I strike a note of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for not only having had the perspicacity to take note of the extent of gambling in this country but for having had enough imagination, initiative and persistence to construct a method for harnessing this spinning wheel of fortune to a social purpose.
The Bill's pedigree is in reality very much a Conservative one. The drive came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and the nuts and bolts came from the "small lotteries" section of the report of the Working Party on Lotteries which was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn when they were in office.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Why did the Conservative Government not introduce this provision into the Finance Bill in December 1973?

Mr. Alison: Because we are great believers in private enterprise. The hon. Lady is not the progenitor of the Bill. She is its midwife. The credit belongs to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn.
The question arises whether the Home Office made a good job of the ingredients which they left behind.

Dr. Summerskill: On a point of information, in case any hon. Members are under the impression that the Government's Bill is the same as that introduced by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) I should point out that the right hon. Gentleman's limits and scale were far too excessive for our liking. Certainly on that score there is no similarity between the two Bills.

Mr. Alison: That is the point to which I am now coming. Having clearly established the pedigree and origin of this measure I want to consider whether the Government have produced anything out of the ingredients left in the Home Office by my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends which make sense.
I turn, first, to the local authority provisions. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby had exactly the right instinct and strategy in concentrating in his Bill on local authorities. If there is to be massive indulgence in gambling in Britain, if there is to be a net loss by gamblers of £800 million a year, there is a clear case not only for trying to harness this instinct to a constructive social purpose, but for priority to be given to supporting the essential, environmental and personal social services provided by local government before anything else. That is why my right hon. Friend was right to concentrate on that aspect. Not only did his Bill feature this priority but it underwrote it with financial provisions which I understand would have yielded up to £6 million per local authority per annum as distinct from about £520,000 per local authority per annum in the Government's Bill.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, because of the limitations of the measure, the cost factor of operation by a local authority will adversely affect its net revenue? If so, the figures are even greater than £6 million and £520,000 in real terms.

Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support for my general proposition that the Government have made a muddle of the local government provisions of my right hon. Friend's


Bill in the Bill that they have brought forward.
This Bill unquestionably drastically revises downwards, as the Minister admitted, and as provided for in Clause 9(9), my right hon. Friend's original turnover limits. It may be argued that the Government were justified in scaling down these financial provisions because they were filling the gap left by my right hon. Friend by providing for private societies, charities, football clubs, and so on, but I fear that the result may be the worst, not the best, of both worlds. The larger authorities, like the Greater London Council, may opt out because the potential yield and relative cost respectively will be too low and too high, and only the smaller local authorities will opt in. That would not have been the situation with my right hon. Friend's Bill. Paradoxically, the smaller local authorities opting in will be the most serious threat to small local charities, private societies, football clubs, and so on, which the Bill sets about trying to enfranchise but is potentially going to threaten.
It could be argued, as I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn would argue—and has argued—that if the Government decided drastically to scale down the financial limits in my right hon. Friend's Bill they should have gone the whole hog and adopted the really modest limits suggested in the working party's report. Instead, they have gone for the unhappy medium which is not big enough for the major local authorities but is sufficiently large to be a real threat, in small local lotteries, to the private societies which the Bill seeks to enfranchise. In other words, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn said on Second Reading of my right hon. Friend's Bill the Government have made a muddle of it. They have fallen between two stools.
The Government, to their credit, have provided flexible powers for changing the rates. In Committee we shall be able to look at the rates. It may be that we shall want to consider raising the limits rather nearer to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby proposed in his Bill, with perhaps his original and interesting device of ordering, by statute, a creaming off of some percent-

tage of local authority lotteries for local charities and private societies. We can consider that matter in Committee.
My second broad criticism of the Bill relates to the complicated bureaucratic provisions for registration and surveillance. I do not complain that some kind of machinery of registration and surveillance should be provided—indeed, I stress the importance that I attach to registration and surveillance—but I think that the dual provision for the registration of societies with a local government registrar and for the registration of schemes with the separate Gaming Board—both local authorities and voluntary societies have to register schemes with the Gaming Board—is complicated. Indeed it seems paradoxical for local authorities to have to register schemes with the board when in some circumstances voluntary societies do not. It seems an extremely complex, bureaucratic and rather convoluted way of making everybody go in varied directions to separate registering authorities.
Is there not a danger that the Gaming Board will get so bogged down with the mass of details, provided by every small lottery scheme which sends in an application, that its broad duty of exercising vigilance over gaming in this country in the round will be seriously jeopardised and compromised?
It is worth pointing out—I am indebted to Mr. G. E. Moody, secretary to the Churches Council on Gambling, for his advice here—that 14,000 betting offices in Britain with a turnover of £1,500 million a year have no such overseeing board as is provided in the Bill with its modest provisions for small lotteries. The betting shops provide the easiest access to hard gambling in the world outside Las Vegas. That is what we have now without any surveillance comparable to that provided for in the Bill.
I think that the provisions relating to the Gaming Board and local registration by local authorities need to be carefully looked at. The Bill ought to concentrate local registration on and by local authorities, to make certain that the Gaming Board has a free hand for its generalised function of broad national surveillance of gaming.
There are one or two more technical points on which I should like to touch.


Perhaps the Minister will comment on them in winding up.
It is not clear to me whether separate local branches of national societies are to be treated separately from the point of view of being able to run local lotteries. There is a reference to branches of national societies in Clause 1(2), but it is not clear to me whether each distinct branch of a national organisation will be able to run its own local lottery.
Secondly, on this more technical aspect, why does the phrase "specified purposes" in Clause 4(3), dealing with local authorities, relate back to subsection (2)(a) which deals with private societies, not local government lotteries? There seems to be a muddle here. I do not believe that the concept of "specified purposes" has been properly thought through and presented in the Bill.
Finally, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2, dealing with registration of schemes by the board, states:
The Secretary of State may direct the Board to restore any registration which, in pursuance of paragraph 4 … the Board have revoked".
There is apparently no power in the Bill for anybody to appeal to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State act entirely independently, or is there to be provision for people to appeal to him?
Those are modest technical points on the Bill. We shall want to discuss many other matters in Committee. I know that we are having a short debate, but some of my hon. Friends want to comment on the Bill.

Mr. David Weitzman: Does not all that the hon. Gentleman has said amount to this, that we have in the Bill an excellent framework, and everything he has suggested is a matter to be dealt with in Committee?

Mr. Alison: Not at all. I have tried to show that the Bill makes a fundamental mistake in scaling down the local government financial limits—which is perhaps the most important thing that the Minister mentioned—which my right hon. Friend provided for, yet paradoxically the Government may not have scaled them down enough. They have fallen between two stools.
On account of its inspiration and pedigree—my right hon. Friend's Bill—

I welcome the Bill, but because of its evident shortcomings, my welcome on behalf of the Opposition is only guarded. We shall seek to improve it in Committee.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said that Britain is a gambler's paradise. I do not necessarily agree, but I assume that he was referring to the loss of £8,000 million in that way. He thought that that was a bad thing. He then expressed support for the Bill if the prizes were larger, which would mean an extension of gambling. I do not see how he can take both views.
Because of earlier events in this Chamber today, there is a total of 76 minutes for the Second Reading debate. Forty minutes have been taken up by the two Front Benchers and presumably a Minister will also want to reply. Thirty other hon. Members wish to speak. The best thing that the Ministers can do is intimate through the usual channels that they will not ask for a decision tonight. There has been one revolt already today, and there might be another at 7 o'clock. There is time for that comment to be passed on to those concerned.
In the Labour Party, capital punishment, temperance and gambling have always been matters of conscience. I do not go around with my conscience on my sleeve, but I do not think that the Government should try too hard for a Second Reading tonight. They should be more sensitive.
I object to the Bill in principle, and I object to the effect that it might have on the employment of my constituents. The Minister moved the Second Reading in her usual lucid and calm manner. If anyone could persuade me to support the Bill it would be she and her hon. Friend. But they have not done so. Whatever fine words the Bill is wrapped up in, this is a gambling Bill, designed to legalise what is now unlawful, and it is brought forward at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.
Although the title—Lotteries Bill—seems innocuous, it is designed to increase the facilities for gambling, and it must do without my support. Its supporters argue that the gambling would be for a worthy cause. How often have we heard that the means justify the end? The fact


that a cause is worthy should not automatically ensure support for the means by which the cause is to be advanced. Behind all the attractive facade, the Bill will enable charities or local government to promise something for very little, advantages without effort, better services without increased costs. The Bill remains a gambling Bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 extend the present legislation concerning societies and charities. I was concerned when the Minister said that because football clubs have to extend their safety provisions this would be one way of raising the money. Are we really saying that the best way to pay for the safety of football clubs is through lotteries? Is that the situation that this country is in?

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the football crowds in his constituency are usually between 40,000 and 50,000? Many small clubs desperately need this kind of assistance.

Mr. Ogden: There are small clubs in my area, too. We certainly have the best football teams in the country, large or small. But whether clubs are large or small their safety precautions should be paid for at the gate and not by the chance of whether a lottery is or is not successful.
Some of the provisions to extend charity legislation seem reasonable, but on the local government side I have a fundamental objection. Local authorities are not just one more kind of organisation. I do not elect my city councillors to go into the gambling business. They should control, but not take part. It is a backward step in local government to start promising a swiming pool or something else for nothing. Our local government did not grow up to offer something for nothing. If we want people to run a casino, we should give them the concession and take the taxes and rates. But I do not expect councillors to go into the business of gaming or gambling. That is not their task.
The Bill may help charities, yet I have a letter from the Information Officer of the Central Council of Physical Recrea-

tion, Mr. Peter Cheney, in which he says:
I do hope you will bear in mind the plight facing the voluntary bodies as regards finance. We are desperately short of money and any fresh competition for the steadily dwindling amount of available public money will mean that many voluntary organisations will be faced with the possibility of closure.
So the attempt to extend the operations of charity lotteries might be required to meet the threat of local government lotteries. With all her experience and advice, the Minister could not say whether the increased revenue would come from gambling or from a transference from existing lotteries. I doubt whether a local government or national lottery will be as profitable as the supporters suggest. The best way to support a charity is to give money direct. That is worth more to a local charity than any lottery.
Many Members in the other debate, on 31st January, said that local authority lotteries would affect not only fund-raising but other aspects of local charities. My concern is also that the existence of local government lotteries would increase demands for a national lottery. The key to success for any lottery or gamble is the size of the prize. Nationally, the prize would have to be big.
In this Bill, the Government have apparently adopted the first stage of the report of the inter-departmental working party on gaming and lotteries. Before we move on to any second stage, there should be a White Paper. With all the Royal Commissions being set up these days, it is time for one on gambling, which could hear more than the evidence available to civil servants and make properly considered and presented recommendations.
I am even more concerned about the effect of local lotteries and the demand for a national lottery on employment in my city and my constituency—of which area the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) also ably represents a part. I am sure that a number of his constitutents also work in the pools organisations in Liverpool, in which are situated the headquarters of one football pools organisation and the major part of another. Littlewoods Pools employ 10,000 people and Vernons 4,000. This


is not the time, on Merseyside or anywhere else, for increased threats of unemployment.
Vernons paid £17 million in tax in 1973–74 and Littlewoods almost £45 million. The treasury has a real interest in that sort of money. I am concerned with the effects on employment, more than the financial aspects. The Minister recognised this on 31st January, when he said that I was concerned about the effect on employment that the right hon. Member for Crosby's Bill would have. I hope that the Government will bear this important aspect in mind.
Certainly, if the Government are to extend facilities for gambling of one kind and another they ought to be looking at the restrictions that are placed on football pools organisations as regards advertising, whether in the Press or on television, and other restrictions now imposed on football pools promoters.
If there is to be gambling, of which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash spoke, let there be free competition between one part and the other. I would put one question to my hon. Friend. If I read it aright, Clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill speaks of
purposes which are not described in paragraph (a) above and are neither purposes of private gain nor purposes of any commercial undertaking; 
Without in any way trespassing on a debate which is to follow this at 7 o'clock, I would think that, inadvertently, either the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) or Her Majesty the Queen, under the terms of this Bill, could promote a Royal Lottery or a Central Fife Lottery. That is something which may not have been brought to the attention of either Her Majesty or my hon. Friend for Fife, Central.
Lastly, I would raise with my hon. Friends the timing of this Bill. Why this Bill now? Certainly, I did not campaign in West Derby at any time during the last 10 years for a Labour Government which would bring forward a Lotteries Bill. There was nothing about this in the October Queen's Speech, unless it was the reference:
Other measures will be laid before the House".
There was certainly nothing about it in the Labour Party manifesto. It comes at

a time when the Government—and Opposition parties, to be fair—are saying that this is a time for three or four years' hard work and sacrifice. For a Government to bring forward a Bill which allows people to get something for nothing shows a degree of insensitivity such as I have seldom met before.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I have already spoken several times on this subject when I was very anxious that the Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) should get through. It did so in the last Parliament but, unfortunately, it was thrown out by another place. I welcome the Bill, though some of my colleagues will share the view of The Times leader, which spoke of this as a not very dignified way of raising revenue. I disagree with that, but I also have my reservations about the content of this measure.
I support the original view of the County Councils Association that there should be no objection in principle to subsidising sport and recreation—to which I would add the word "culture"—by money derived from lotteries. But I also support the view expressed from the Opposition Front Bench that a lottery should be of such a size as to justify the administrative cost. Personally, I regret the apparent change of mind of the CCA, which I am certain does not reflect the views of my own local authority or many others.
I fully respect the views against gambling expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), but it seems odd that he should also be speaking for his own constituency, which happens to contain two of the biggest gambling organisations. One is either for or against. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be amended in Committee to make the stakes more worth while. I entirely agree that this will help charities, and certainly football clubs. But I do not think local authorities are going to be greatly interested, for reasons that hav already been given. If the Bill is amended I do not believe that the smaller charities will suffer, though the large promoters might provide more competition for the football pools, which some may feel might not be such a bad thing. Certainly, all the clubs in the South virtually survive


through one-armed bandits. My own club, on the Isle of Wight, raises over £8,000 per year by their use.
It is my view that only the larger authorities should promote lotteries, and preferably not more than one or two a year; and the sale of tickets should be restricted within county boundaries. In the hope that the Government will see sense again and accept amendments along these lines, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give this measure a Second Reading this evening.

The Deputy Speaker: This debate is due to finish at 7 o'clock. [An hon. Member: "Shame!"] The House, not I, decided, on an earlier motion. That puts me in a very difficult position. If I now call an hon. Member I shall be glad if he will sit down by twenty minutes to 7 o'clock, so that there may be concluding speeches.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I appreciate the difficulty in which you find yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the same time, I must add my voice to that of the lion. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) in protesting against the paucity of time allocated to this debate. After all, the subject touches many people, and this afternoon we have had the spectacle of an hon. Member on the Opposition side wasting the time of the House. By debating this Bill this afternoon we are wasting the time of the House, because I feel that a measure of this kind should not be before the House at this or any other time.
I well remember when we were discussing the measure brought forward by the right hon. Member for Crosby that there was a great deal of debate and objections were made and I should have thought that this subject might have been wound up altogether on that occasion. I also remember that at Business Question Time on Thursday last my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) taxed the right hon. Member the Lord President of the Council asking him why this Bill, which nobody, apart from the right hon. Member for Crosby, seems to want, should be brought forward at this time. I thought the Lord President seemed very sad when he said that one of his colleagues had made a promise that the

measure would be brought forward within a month, as a result of which we have it this afternoon.
In my opinion, this measure is a nonevent. Even now, with all the promises which it pretends to hold out the voluntary organisations are fearful that the net result will be to stultify their efforts. Many of them fear that they will have to close down, leaving their work to be done by local authorities, Government organisations and others so that in the long run we shall all lose.
I pass to another point relevant to this Bill, raised by my hon. Friend the Minister, who said that one of the important aspects of the Bill was that it would help to provide funds for football clubs in the event of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill becoming the law of the land. This is problematical. It was pointed out in a recent debate that there is some dubiety on the question whether commercial organisations such as football clubs would come within the ambit of this Bill.
I would put another point to hon. Members. A direction has been put on this point by the Minister that, in all fairness, any idea that local authorities might be helped with the rates as a result is just not on. Hon. Members should therefore think very carefully before voting for this measure, considering that ratepayers, if they are to be helped at all in this respect, will receive only infinitesimal help. But for the shortness of time I would seek to quote from a statement made by the Greater London Council, which clearly pointed out that it would not be feasible for it to mount a lottery under its own auspices. The Government are falling between two stools. The proposals in the Bill, while providing little benefit for local authorities, will pose a threat to the voluntary organisations.
As I have said, the Bill is a nonevent. I shall conclude my speech shortly—although from some indications I hear, some of my hon. Friends are telling me not to do so.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."] I shall conclude, because I think that we should take a vote on this matter.
I echo the sentiments expressed by the leader of my local authority. He has said that councils have enough to do without organising lotteries. All in all, it would be a mercy if the Bill were


quietly forgotten. I propose to divide the House against it this evening.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: In the short time that I wish to take up, I want to express my objections to this Bill, which has been concocted by the Government. It is a different Bill from that presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), to which some of us objected on 31st January.
Possibly one of the most striking differences in this Bill is the fact that under these proposals, which will enable a promoting local authority to run a lottery, a staggering amount of money is involved. It could amount to a tremendous total, annually. Since the debate on 31st January I have ascertained from the Library the number of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales which, under the terms of the Bill if it were passed, would be entitled to run a lottery. A staggering total of no fewer than 8,600 local authorities, would be new promoting agencies. I am not surprised that the Under-Secretary looks at me in amazement. That is the total—8,600. If they each ran a weekly lottery with a maximum turnover of £10,000 a week, the possible annual turnover of lottery money by local authorities could be no less than £4,350 million. My major objection. On 31st January I was apprehensive about what would happen to the social, political, sporting, religious and cultural lotteries. Under the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I was afraid—because he made no mention of them in his Bill—that they would be swamped. But with this new power of raising revenue that is to be granted to every local authority in the country, I am more than ever convinced that social, sporting and all other local lotteries which are run at present will be utterly swamped, and that the clubs and organisations concerned will be in severe financial difficulties. For that reason alone, I have very grave reservations about the whole of this Bill.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members who hope to

speak later in the debate, as well as for myself, when I say that the time that has been allotted to the debate on the Bill is quite inadequate. I am aware that earlier today the House passed a motion which meant that there would be a vote at 7 o'clock, but I am sure that all hon. Members who agreed to that motion did so on the assumption that there would be a debate of about three hours on this Bill. I know of no other controversial Bill, be it a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill, which has been allowed to go to a vote on Second Reading with this amount of discussion, one and a quarter hours, of which the Front Benches propose to take one hour.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a fuller debate when the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was before the House, and that matters were discussed then?

Mr. Marks: We are here to debate the Second Reading of a Government Bill. That is what I had hoped to do.
I am aware that a number of points must be made, and I want to leave some time to my hon. Friend the Minister. All that I say to him is this. In the Labour Party manifesto we said that public services ought to be paid for by the public. The only argument is about how to share the costs, not how to avoid them. We have set up a committee to examine ways in which local authorities can raise their finances. This Bill pre-empts the examination that is now being undertaken. It is no use saying that it is not a substitute for rates. Clause 4 says:
A local authority may promote a lottery for any purposes for which they have power to incur expenditure under any enactment".
If it is not a substitute for rates, it is an incitement to local authorities to spend more at the present time, which is utterly wrong.
A local authority lottery would be wasteful in terms of manpower and costly in administration. The people who would buy the tickets would be those who, in the main, cannot afford them but who hope to make £1,000 to get themselves out of difficulties. It will be the women who go to the shops, the public libraries, the washhouses and other public places who will give rise to an increase in gambling.
I had intended to abstain from voting, because I could not support the Government in permitting local authorities to run lotteries of this kind. In view of the time available for the debate, however, I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) when he divides the House on this matter.

6.46 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I shall not attempt to make a Second Reading speech in view of the time limit. I want to register an appeal with you, Mr. Speaker, about protection of back benchers in situations such as this. It is a matter of extreme controversy whether local authorities should be put into a position in which they will have little choice but to operate schemes of this kind. It is utterly wrong that we should have only a little over an hour in which to debate a Bill which contains much that is good as well as much to which hon. Members, quite rightly, are objecting. I hope that those who are responsible for deciding Government business will recognise the genuine feelings on their own benches, as well as those on the Opposition benches, and will not insist on the Question being put in about 10 minutes' time. So much more could be said, and I trust that other opportunities will be given for that. Therefore, I shall sit down in the hope that we may get a statement now from the Government.

6.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I accept the criticisms which have been made from both sides of the House about the time for the debate. I want to say very clearly that I think that all hon. Members appreciate that it is not really the Government's fault that this time has been so restricted. It was expected that the debate would start at about 3.30 p.m. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). When we were discussing the Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) less than a month ago, for a whole day, the arguments for and against local authorities having powers to run lotteries were fully rehearsed. Indeed, last year, when the right hon. Gentleman presented his Bill, the House passed the principle—that lotteries should be run. There

was some question from the Government side as to the actual extent and amounts under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. That criticism has been debated or touched upon this evening.

Mr. Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. James Lamond: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Oakes: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), first.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have not had the Government's Bill for very long, and that it is very different from my right hon. Friend's Bill. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that it arouses a good deal of controversy in the House in these circumstances. Does he agree that the right course of action to take is not to try to get the Second Reading debate concluded today but to give the House an opportunity to study these very important matters at leisure and at length, on a subsequent date?

Mr. Oakes: On that point, I was saying that the Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby was debated and that the principle was accepted by the House. When the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was debated and subsequently withdrawn, it was on the understanding that the Government Bill—which was then before the House and had had a First Reading—would be taken within a month. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for us either to withdraw the Bill or to postpone it today.
I have no doubt that hon. Members have criticisms of the Bill. Many of those hon. Members may be members of the Standing Committee, and they can voice their criticism in Committee and make amendments.

Mr. James Lamond: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Oakes: I shall give way in a moment. Subsequently the Bill will return to the Floor of the House for the Report Stage and Third Reading, when many of the points which hon. Members wish to make can be raised. I should have thought that the principle, particularly with regard to the extension of the power to


have lotteries—there is no compulsion in the Bill—if local authorities so wish, had really been accepted by the House in the previous Parliament.

Mr. James Lamond: Is not this an extraordinary argument for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to put forward? If he feels that the Bill was adequately discussed on Friday 31st January, why did the Front Benches, in opening and winding up, feel it necessary to take over 60 per cent. of the time available for discussion today? If this were a Friday and the closure was proposed on a Private Members' Bill after an hour and a half's debate, it would be refused.

Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not in any way a vociferous type of person. I sit back and listen, but I submit that I am entitled to raise a point of order on this issue. Some of us regard the matter which we are now debating as being as important as that which we debated earlier, and as important as, if not more important than, the one on which we are about to embark at 7 o'clock. From time to time, Mr. Speaker, I have heard you say that you must protect the rights of the minority interests in this House. I am claiming that the Minister, in his reply, is steam-rolling the rights of the minority. I ask for your protection because this is a very important measure, which will have a serious effect not only upon sporting organisations but upon the lives, homes and happiness of millions of our people. I ask for your guidance on the question whether you can ensure that this debate can be continued at some time after 7 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised this as a point of order. I do not think it is for me to express an opinion on the extent to which I sympathise with him. The House has already decided this matter today without a Division.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House decided that matter on the understanding that this issue would be proceeded with at half-past 3 o'clock, or 3.45 this afternoon. It was 5.45 when we started. We have been debating this for only one hour

and eight minutes, so far. This is not good enough for a Second Reading debate. In fairness to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), with whose approach to the Bill I disagree, he is entitled to have his say on the Floor of the House. I plead with you and with the Government spokesman: do not steamroller us. We have been loyal to you time and time again. In my opinion, this is a prostitution of our democratic procedures.

Mr. Speaker: So far as those remarks are addressed to me, I have noted them, but I do not think I can help. So far as they are addressed to the Government, that is a different matter. The hon. Member says that it was expected that this matter would be started after about half-past 3 o'clock. If he had looked at the Order Paper and had considered the possibilities he might have had some doubts. I confess that I was slightly surprised that the Business motion got through unopposed.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion passed by the House was that you should put the Question on the Second Reading of the Lotteries Bill not later than 7 o'clock. I take it that that would not prevent the Government, if they so chose, withdrawing the Bill at this stage and re-presenting it?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly it would not.

Mr. Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling and the fact that we, as always, are directing our comments through you to other Members of the House, it will be within your recollection that on Friday 31st January Government Members opposed the adjournment of the House, my right hon. Friend who was to wind up stating that we should not adjourn then because other Members wished to take part in the debate. That was after two and a half hours of debate. We have now had less than one and a quarter hours of debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in the unenviable position of having to support his Department. We say that one and a quarter hours debate on this Bill—I am not referring to what happened to a Private Members' Bill on a Friday; a Bill that no longer exists—is not good enough.


My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are causing more difficulties than they need. They could avoid those difficulties with a little sensitivity.

Mr. Oakes: I am not certain whether that was a point of order.

Mr. Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) a moment ago that you felt that these matters were not matters for you. With the greatest possible respect, I suggest that what may be within your ambit is to consider whether you feel that the rights of all Members in this House—back-bench Members as well as Front-Bench Members—have been properly studied and have not been curtailed in any way by having only one and a quarter hours, or whatever it is, in which to debate the Second Reading of this important Bill. I submit that you have this responsibility conferred upon you, Mr. Speaker, and that in that respect you have an opportunity to say whether you think the time at our disposal is adequate.

Mr. Speaker: I must give a straight answer. I think I am bound by the Business motion which has already been passed. Mr. Oakes.

Mr. Oakes: The Business motion before the House means that a vote must take place at 7 o'clock. The only option to me is to withdraw the Bill, and I can tell the House that this is a Government—

Sir B. Rhys Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Under-Secretary says that the only option open to him is to withdraw the Bill. Surely, it is not obligatory on the Government to put Tellers in if a Division is called, in which case the Division could be called off.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was not a precedent set some time ago, on the Bill concerning the wearing of safety belts? The Minister at the Dispatch Box on that occasion said that he would consider the matter and would continue the debate on another occasion. If that was done on one measure, it can be done likewise on this important measure.

Mr. Speaker: It is open to the Minister to seek to adjourn the debate if he thinks

fit. I shall have to put the Question at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Michael Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who is now on the Government Front Bench, could surely help his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary out of his dilemma.

Mr. Oakes: The principle of the Bill—not the Bill, but the principle—has been debated, and I can assure hon. Members that many people outside the House, particularly in charitable and sporting organisations, are very anxious that the limits should be increased. They want the Bill to go through for that reason. As for the local authority part of the Bill, local authorities are put into a position whereby, if they choose, they can operate lotteries for specific schemes.

Mr. Ron Lewis: The local authorities do not want it.

Mr. Oakes: If local authorities do not want it, they are under no obligation whatsoever to operate the provisions of this measure, but they have the powers to operate it if they so wish.
Many hon. Members have raised various points to which I have not had the opportunity to reply. I assure them that we shall give written replies to the various points which have been raised. The Bill is not a major measure, but it is an important Bill which will give considerable assistance to small lotteries by increasing the limits, which were set 12 years ago, to realistic levels within the present context of the value of money, and extends that provision to local authorities as well.
For that reason I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill. When that has been done, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, it can be debated and discussed in detail in Committee and, indeed, on the Floor of the House during its Report and Third Reading stages, when many of the worries that hon. Members have expressed during this debate can be dealt with at a far better level.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, put the Question pursuant to order this day, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 64.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil


Alison, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Allaun, Frank
Faulds, Andrew
MacGregor, John


Archer, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mackenzie, Gregor


Ashley, Jack
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mackintosh, John P.


Ashton, Joe
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)


Banks, Robert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, Kevin


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Fookes, Miss Janet
Madden, Max


Bates, Alf
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marquand, David


Benyon, W.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Biffen, John
Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bishop, E. S
Freud Clement
Marten, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael


Boardman, H.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol


Booth, Albert
George, Bruce
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gilbert, Dr John
Mayhew, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Goodhart, Philip
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Graham, Ted
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Buchanan, Richard
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Budgen, Nick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamling, William
Montgomery, Fergus


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carmichael, Neil
Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter, Ray
Hayman Mrs Helene
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Churchill, W. S
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clegg, Walter
Horam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cockcroft, John
Hordern, Peter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cohen, Stanley
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Neave, Airey


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Neubert, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newton, Tony


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Normanton, Tom


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Oakes, Gordon


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Orbach, Maurice


Crouch, David
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Osborn, John


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ovenden, John


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Owen, Dr David


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaberry Sir Donald
Pardoe, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Park, George


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Parker, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kelley, Richard
Pendry, Tom


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Phipps, Dr Colin


Doig, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Price C. (Lewisham W)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Radice, Giles


Dunn, James A,
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rathbone, Tim


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dykes, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Edge, Geoff
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lipton, Marcus
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Luard, Evan
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Luce, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Evans John (Newton)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)







Ryman, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Sainsbury, Tim
Stallard A. W.
Wall, Patrick


Sedgemore, Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Selby, Harry
Stanley, John
Watkins, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Watkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Stoddart, David
Weitzman, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James


Shepherd, Colin
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wells, John


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Silvester, Fred
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Sims, Roger
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Sinclair, Sir George
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Skeet. T. H. H.
Tomlinson, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Small, William
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)



Snape, Peter
Wakeham, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Speed, Keith
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Spence, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)






NOES


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan
Mudd, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nelson, Anthony


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ogden, Eric


Body, Richard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Hatton, Frank
Parry, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Greville
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Carson, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cartwright, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roper, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Cordle, John H.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Litterick, Tom
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunlop, John
McCusker, H.
White, James (Pollok)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marks, Kenneth
Woodall, Alec


Farr, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)



Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mills, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Molyneaux, James
Mr. Ivor Clemitson and


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Monro, Hector
Mr. George Rodgers.


Golding, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LOTTERIES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with regard to lotteries promoted on behalf of societies or as incidents of entertainments, and to authorise local authorities to promote lotteries, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in consequence of, or in connection with, the

provisions of the said Act by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had only an hour and a quarter to debate the Second Reading of the Bill. Is it possible to raise any question on the Money Resolution at this point?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it is not—and I think that I have gone too far in allowing the hon. Member to raise a point of order. I am bound to put the Money Resolution without debate.

Question put forthwith pursuant to order this day and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST

7.14 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil List (Increase of Financial Provisions) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 133), dated 5th February 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be annulled.
This is not a debate about the Monarchy as an institution. There is wide support in the country, in the light of contemporary history, for British constitutional practice with the restraints, checks and balances which exist upon the power of the Head of State and which have led to its being far preferable to some other countries' systems. One has only to look at the experience of the United States over the activities of the former President, Mr. Nixon, to realise that other systems have great faults. If one looks at the antics of President Amin one can see that a serving president is not infallible.
This motion is, therefore, neither an anti-Monarchy nor a pro-republican device. It is about the allocation of resources and the purposes to which those resources are applied. I shall seek to show that the order should be annulled on four basic grounds. The first is the manner of its presentation to Parliament. The second is the effect that it has on the social contract. The third is the absence of any detailed evidence of the effect on wage and salary rates of employees of the Royal Household. Fourth is the availability of other sources of revenue to finance certain requirements of the Royal Household.
I deal first with the manner of presentation. I believe, and I regret, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has fallen below his normal standard of care and sensitivity in the way in which he has dealt with the presentation to Parliament of this order. Both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are Royal Trustees under the terms of the Civil List Act. Parliament has laid upon them both the difficult responsibility of keeping under review the Civil List expenditure.
If in their opinion expenditure of the Royal Household seems likely to exceed

the amount voted by Parliament under the Civil List the Royal Trustees are required to make a report to the Treasury. To whom do they report in the Treasury? One person is the Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, none other than the Prime Minister, and the other is, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The silly situation therefore exists in which the Royal Trustees look at the expenditure of the Royal Household, form an opinion and then present their report to themselves.
They then have another duty. Once they have reported their views to themselves they are required under Section 5 of the 1972 Act to lay a copy of the Royal Trustees' report before the House of Commons. What they are not required to do under the law is simultaneously to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Royal Trustees' report to the Treasury. But that is what they have chosen to do and it is that to which I take exception.
That report of the Royal Trustees laid before Parliament on 12th February this year could have been debated by this House. The crux of my criticism of the Prime Minister's handling of this issue is that by laying this order he has removed from this House the opportunity of expressing an opinion on the report of the Royal Trustees and on all the matters contained therein.
However, he has done something even more serious. He has denied himself the benefit of the advice of this House on these grave matters of State.
All the views expressed to us by our constituents on this matter, many of them deeply held and seriously conscientious, and the views of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, could have been adequately debated and could have been taken into account by the Prime Minister before he made the order. In not choosing to handle the matter in that way he has made more difficult the situation we now face, because we are to a degree confined in our debate, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of statutory instrument debate.
The elected representatives of the people have, I believe, been denied the opportunity of full debate on the proper provision of finance for the Head of


State, and that is regrettable. There may be some souls in the Chamber less generous than mine who might believe that that was the object of the exercise, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has allowed a chance to slip through his fingers. He has allowed to develop on the financing of the Royal Household a controversy that is damaging both to the Monarchy and to the social contract, because it leaves unanswered many questions that arise in the minds of hon. Members and their constituents. That is sufficient reason why the order should be annulled tonight. It denies the fundamental right of the House fully to debate in the widest aspects money being voted by Parliament.
It is not my intention to refer to the leak of documents relating to the Queen's finances which has appeared in a national newspaper, other than to say to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that as an ex-plumber I share the Prime Minister's view that nothing justifies a leak. I have no doubt that other hon. Members may wish to enlarge on that aspect of the matter if they should catch the eye of the Chair.
I turn to the second basis of my submission to the House. The order must be seen against the backcloth that this country and our people face a period of acute economic difficulty. The order must be seen through the eyes of the people outside who see Parliament prepared to make available a substantial increase in the Royal Household finances while they are being asked to tighten their belts. In my household, and, I am sure, in every other average domestic household, there is another sovereign, namely, the housewife, who is struggling to keep her family afloat in the turbulent sea of inflation. Her interests have to be taken into account. We must consider how she will react to the announcement in the order.
The order also has to be seen in the context of the reaction of organised workers who are in the midst of negotiations on wage claims and who are being constantly reminded—quite rightly—of the vital need to keep within the guidelines of the social contract.
What are the worthy citizens of this realm to believe when in the midst of

exhortations from Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they observe the following two things? On the very day that the House went into the Christmas Recess the Government slipped through, in the form of a Written Answer, an announcement of increases in top salaries. What a reply that was to hon. Members and people throughout the country who were trying to encourage people to act within the guidelines of the social contract! Now we have this order put forward without a full opportunity to debate the Royal Trustees' report, and without the full explanation which ordinary men and women are entitled to receive before they give approval to such an order.
However justified the increases may be in the minds of Ministers who have this difficult and invidious responsibility, they are not so easily justified in the minds of average citizens, whether they be Members of Parliament or electors, who do not have before them the full information which the Ministers had when they came to the decision to bounce the order before us alongside the Royal Trustees' report.
My contention is that the Prime Minister, both by the top salaries award and now by the order, has allowed unnecessary damage to be inflicted on the social contract. Even at this late stage I appeal to him, through my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to rectify that mistake and to minimise the damage by withdrawing the order. Let us have a proper presentation of all the relevant facts about the financial provision for the Royal Household.
It is my belief, and I am sure that it is the belief of all those who support me tonight in the Prayer, that the British people are sensible and fair-minded, and that if they are given the facts they will respond in the way that those facts demand, but if there is an attempt to conceal the facts, to edge away from full disclosure of all aspects of income, Civil List expenditure and payments from the Civil List to the Royal Household, they become suspicious, and when they become suspicious they become resentful of the institution itself.
It is not enough to rely on the fact that Her Majesty has offered to provide for one year from her own private income £150,000 to offset the initial impact of


the increased cost of the Royal Household. What are the private resources available to Her Majesty? Are they something which we are not entitled to take into account?
I believe that the real impact that has to be suffered is the impact on the social contract which we are trying to uphold. The only way to soften or to offset that impact and to get understanding from the country as a whole for this increase is to give full disclosure to Parliament and to the people. That is the second ground for my Prayer for the annulment of the order. The order must be judged on its effect on the social contract. The social contract was a central and crucial factor in Labour's election manifesto, and it ought to have been taken into account when the order was presented to the House.
The third ground upon which I make my submission is the complete absence of detailed evidence to justify the orders being laid before the House. I shall put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer three or four questions in the hope and expectation that he will be able to give some answers.
First, can the Chancellor show that the 75 per cent of this increased expenditure which the Government claim is for wages and salaries is going to the lower-paid workers in the Royal Household, or is an unreasonably high proportion going to employees at the top of the tree'? We are entitled to at least that information.
Secondly, what consultations have taken place with the Civil Service unions and other appropriate trade unions, about members in the employ of the Royal Household, in respect of the allocation of these extra resources? What discussions and negotiations have there been on the appropriate rates of wages and conditions of service?
Thirdly, I hope that the Chancellor will also tell us the average hourly rate of pay for people engaged in the grades of employment in the Royal Household as set out in Appendix 21 of the report of the Select Committee on the Civil List in the Session 1971–72. Those grades include porters, kitchen staff, gardeners and all the people who do the useful work of the Royal Household. I hope

that he will tell us what their present hourly rates are and what he believes will be the effect of this increase in the Civil List expenditure. That may go some way to relieve our apprehension.
Fourthly, can the Chancellor tell the House how the Prime Minister proposes to operate the new way in which he hopes to deal with Civil List expenditure, which he set out briefly on 12th February 1975 and recorded in column 384 of the Official Report? That is a matter upon which we are entitled to a further explanation.
If it can be shown that many of the increases are going to that sort of wage-earner and are within the guidelines, my right hon. Friend will have done much to allay some of the fears which are now held. If he can show that a full and wide-ranging debate that will enable us to deal with the income and expenditure from this and other sources of other members of the Royal Family, and their position under the proposed changes in the law which the Government have in mind, is but a short while away, he may even persuade some of us to respond to any plea that he might make as regards setting up an inquiry into the total financing of the Royal Household.
I now come to my fourth ground in my Prayer to annul the order. I believe that consideration has to be given to the other sources of revenue that are available to certain members of the Royal Household. There is widespread concern that the Sovereign's income is immune from taxation. There is widespread concern that estate duty and the proposed capital transfer tax do not apply to members of the Royal Household. [Interruption.] I say to Conservative Members, who now and again awaken from their slumbers to growl, that if they were to get away from their clubs and go into the highways and byways to meet the working men and women they would find that away from their tea parties and soirees, even in their own constituencies, there is some apprehension in some quarters on these matters. Let them not live in the thought that everybody else is in the same slumbery dreamland which they seem to wish to occupy. There is widespread concern.
People are asking why it should be that Her Majesty should be exempt from


taxation when working men and women, in their efforts to boost the nation's productivity, work overtime and have to pay tax on their overtime earnings. These are real problems which the House must face. The taxation of our Sovereign and other members of the Royal Family cannot be excluded for much longer from the most serious consideration. In my view, action must be taken by this Parliament to bring equality to bear on the taxtaion of all the citizens of the United Kingdom from the Sovereign down to the humblest working men and women in the realm.

Mr. John Lee: Does my hon. Friend not think that a possible explanation is that Conservative Members are really crypto-Republicans who are trying to bring the Monarchy into disrepute in that they have been led by one social upstart followed by a new social upstart? Does that explain their position?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall not take up all my hon. Friend's strictures. [Interruption.] I join him in that I believe that those who decline to take seriously the widespread and genuine concern about the taxation of Royal income do so at the peril of the Monarchy itself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this debate will be conducted with decency and without sedentary observations.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I share that hope, Mr. Speaker, but nine years' experience has led me to believe that hope is not always fulfilled as regards Conservative Members.

Mr. Speaker: What I was saying applied to both sides of the House.

Mr. Wellbeloved: What I said, Mr. Speaker, also applies to both sides. I do not argue tonight that the private income of the members of the Royal Family should be published in full detail any more than I would argue that the tax returns of ordinary citizens should be made available for scrutiny. It would be indefensible if we demanded of the Sovereign and her family more than we are prepared to submit to ourselves. I would not be prepared to submit my own private tax returns to the scrutiny of every Tom, Dick and Harry. It is right that every one of us should submit a

tax return that should be assessed by a tax inspector and that taxation should be levied according to the laws passed by Parliament. It is equally indefensible that any individual should be immune from taxation.
I turn briefly to the position of other members of the Royal Family and their income from the Civil List. We all know that Her Majesty at the moment receives £980,000 and that that is to be increased to £1,400,000. That is not subject to tax because it is claimed to be paid to meet all the expenses of the Household. We also know that the Queen Mother receives £95,000 that is subject to tax. The Queen Mother lives in Clarence House. In the last financial year £36,000 of public money was spent on Clarence House to bring it into a state suitable for the Queen Mother's residence. The Duke of Edinburgh receives £65,000—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate is limited. There are certain matters which are dealt with under Section 2 of the Act which are not germane to this order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order in his last two examples.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am just coming to the examples which I think may be in order. I shall now refer to those people who are in receipt of funds under the order and whose income would be increased from £60,000 to £85,000. I refer to the members of the Royal Household who do not receive other payments from the Civil List, such as His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, who under the order would be entitled to receive £5,000 per annum tax free for carrying out his duties. In passing, I might just say that he lives in Kensington Palace. That palace has just had £1,435 of public money expended on it to bring it into a condition fit for the Duke of Gloucester's residence. Then there is His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent. Under the order he will be entitled to a tax-free income of £30,000 per annum. He lives in St. James's Palace. Over the past 12 months it has had £5,472 of public money spent on it to bring it into a fit state for his residence. Then there is Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, who, under the order, will receive an income of £22,000 a year tax free. Finally, Her Royal Highness Princess Alice will


receive the modest sum of £3,000 per annum, albeit tax free.
There are other members of the Royal Household who I would have been delighted to have cast my respectful remarks upon had it been possible to have a full debate. I am critical of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister because in laying this order with the Royal Trustees' report he has denied us the opportunity to examine respectfully but diligently the income and the expenditure of members of the Royal Family. In my view, there must be grounds for a full debate so that tax liability and related matters concerning other sources of revenue available to the Sovereign and her family can be properly aired and debated.
If that were done it might be at the end of the day, and in the light of the information revealed, that the House would wish to continue with the present level of Civil List expenditure. We cannot take that view this evening because we do not know the facts. What I seek to do is not to attack the Monarchy as an institution but to encourage the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I wish that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were here; he is a Royal Trustee and should have been here for the debate—to ensure that the full facts are given to the people and to give vent to what I believe is the serious concern felt by many people that the Prime Minister has not handled the matter properly. I believe that he has handled it very badly and in a damaging way both to the social contract and to the Monarchy.
The Prayer is also clear notice of intent by a small, but none the less significant—if I may say so with modesty—group of hon. Members, and a significant and growing number of people in the country, that they seek a wider debate on the whole question of the provision of finances for the Royal Household, and in particular that they seek, and will achieve, a change in the tax exemptions for the Sovereign and her family.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am glad that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), in introducing the debate, said that it should not be an anti-Monarchy debate. I pro-

foundly hope that will be so. The hon. Gentleman asked certain questions, and I hope that the answers which he receives from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will satisfy him so that a vote on the issue can be avoided.
I regret that in the run up to the debate in recent days and weeks efforts have been made by anti-monarchists, by a Communist newspaper and by leakers of Government documents to obscure the real issues, to cast aspersions on the Monarchy and members of the Royal Family and involve the Queen in political controversy. These disreputable efforts will boomerang, and millions of people will rejoice when they do.
The value of the Monarchy cannot be weighed by a balance sheet or in cold money terms. We are talking about something which is much deeper than that. We are talking about an appeal which is as strong overseas as it is at home, as we can see from the tour in which Her Majesty is now engaged. The Queen and the Royal Family are the best ambassadors that Britain and the Commonwealth could possibly have, and at home the Queen symbolises the unity and continuity of the nation. She brightens our lives on great ceremonial occasions, which we in this country manage to perfection, and also on informal occasions, such as walkabouts in shopping centres. At Buckingham Palace alone the Queen entertains about 30,000 people each year, ranging from Heads of State to local councillors. Indeed, in this debate we are speaking of an asset beyond price.
The debate is not about the leakage of Government documents—and I do not wish to say anything about that—nor is it about the Queen's pay. Some organisations, including the BBC, which should know better, have persisted in talking about the Queen's pay and the Queen's salary. A few days ago I had occasion to write to the BBC, and I am glad that in this morning's bulletin the BBC had it right and talked about the expenses which the Queen incurs. The debate has nothing whatever to do with pay; it is about the expenses that the Queen incurs in carrying out her official duties.
The Queen is paid no salary. As part of the origins of the Civil List going back to


the seventeenth century, the Crown agreed to surrender certain Royal revenues in return for a Civil List, and a strong case can be made for saying that the State has had a good financial bargain from that transaction.
The real point of the debate is the effect of inflation on the Royal Household, as on any other employer. Approximately three-quarters of the Civil List expenditure is on wages and salaries. That is all official, not private, expenditure, and under the Civil List arrangements all that expenditure should be met by Parliament. The Queen now meets over £60,000 from her own resources, and she will contribute £150,000 from her own resources in 1975. To deny an increase in the Civil List is either to say that wages and salaries of the Household staff should not be increased or, alternatively, that the Queen should meet public expenditure out of her private pocket.
We all agree that the Royal staff should have reasonable increases, along with other employees. That is one of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, and no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us more information on that. We all agree that the Household staff should not suffer in their wages and salaries because they happen to be Royal employees. Equally, I do not see why the Queen should meet expenditure of this character, any more than we expect employers or trade union leaders to meet wage bills out of their private pockets. I believe that the Government have made out a case, and I shall support the order if, unhappily, there is a Division.
The best arrangement for the Civil List is that it should be fixed at the beginning of each reign. Unfortunately, inflation has defeated that arrangement. The report of the Select Committee which considered the matter in 1971 is embodied in the present arrangements contained in the Civil List Act 1972. But inflation has also defeated that, in the sense that the Royal Trustees have had to come back to Parliament earlier than was envisaged by the Select Committee in 1971.
The Government propose that further increases should be financed by grants-in-aid voted in accordance with the normal Supply procedure. That could

be the thin end of a dangerous wedge. The 1971 Select Committee brought powerful arguments against the annual involvement of Parliament in the Civil List, and those arguments are as strong as ever they were. The proposals for the future represent a big step, and, in my judgment, a wrong and unhappy step, in that direction.
I hope that other possibilities will be considered, in particular the consideration, to which the Select Committee gave attention, and admittedly turned down, of some form of index linking. Many of the arguments which were used against index linking in 1971 are now defeated. That applies particularly to wages and salaries. Since 1971 we have had index linking in various forms, often ad hoc, in wages and salaries in many areas both in the public service and in the private sector. Indeed, many of the Royal Household salaries are linked to appropriate Civil Service grades. It should be possible to revise index linking at least for three-quarters of the expenditure which is involved in wages and salaries.
I hope that in giving consideration to the order the Government will also consider the fears which I have expressed as to the way in which these matters should be conducted in the future. I profoundly hope that when the House has had more information from the Chancellor the order will be approved without a Division. If, unhappily, there is a Division, I shall support the Government and the order.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It is right and wise that this nation should maintain and uphold the institution of the Monarchy and that, although we should not be extravagant about it, it should not be skimped. There is no point in having a Monarchy if we do not do it in style.
Therefore, so far as the substance of the order goes there is not a case for refusing approval. The greater part of it is made up of increases in wages and salaries, and it is necessary if the Monarchy is to continue to be maintained in the style to which the House agreed some years ago when the relevant legislation was passed. If we want to alter that style we should look at the whole question afresh and not chop off a part of it by refusing to agree to the motion.
No doubt we shall find—this will be confirmed in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the wage and salary increases which are proposed are not in any way in breach of the social contract; but, having said that, we have to face the extraordinary fact that the money which we are debating is not enough to meet the wage and salary increases. It is not enough, because we rely on the Queen to meet the balance out of her private resources. We can say that Her Majesty can afford to do so because she is immune from the payment of income tax, and, indeed, successive sovereigns are immune from the payment of estate duty. What we do in all these transactions is to provide for the Monarchy in two ways—first, by voting the Civil List, and, secondly, by forgoing tax which would be collected from any other individual but is not collected from Her Majesty.
The difficulty in discussing this question is that we do not know how much tax is being forgone and how much the nation is spending to maintain the Monarchy. Some members of the Select Committee made a determined attempt to find out, but beyond the information that the Queen's private fortune was not as much as £50 million they were not able to get any further. When I use the phrase "private fortune", I use it in the strictest possible sense. I am talking not about Buckingham Palace, the Crown Jewels, the Royal collection of pictures or any of the things which successive sovereigns hold in trust for the nation, but about the purely private fortune, which is immune to tax.
We are saying that we know that we are not voting enough money for what we agreed in the last Act of Parliament but that the situation is satisfactory because of the Royal immunity to tax. My contention is that this is a slovenly and unsatisfactory way of handling the problem. It is unsatisfactory, first, because it means that the nation as a whole does not know what it is paying for the upkeep of the Monarchy. All those hon. Members who are anxious to see that the Crown is not subject to unjustified criticism want the facts to be known.
The second objection is that it is bound to lead to speculation and argument about exactly what is the size of the Queen's

private fortune. For all the Queen's subjects their private incomes are their private business between them and the Inland Revenue, but the immunity to tax makes the size of the Queen's private fortune a public question. I think that the situation is unfair to the Queen and is generally unfortunate.
The third reason for saying that the situation is unsatisfactory was developed in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved), who spoke of the "people outside". He was somewhat ridiculed by the Conservative benches. I invite those who disagree with him to consider the situation a little more carefully. I believe that there is a steady and growing concern about this matter of the Royal immunity from taxation. I do not suggest that it is a vast mass movement, but I believe it is growing because we are now living in a community where we are always exhorting each other to show respect for the law, to have some sense of national unity and to have a fair sharing of burdens. The spectacle of the example of a Head of State who is immune from that part of the law which requires us to pay taxes is unfortunate. Since I tabled an Early Day Motion on this topic I have received a large postbag, and opinion on this topic is extremely varied, but I believe that there is a growing number of people who strongly want to maintain the Monarchy and who have the greatest personal respect for Her Majesty, but who do not see why this personal immunity from taxation should remain.
Hon. Members who ridicule these views should remember our history. Those counsellors of Kings and Queens who advised them to ignore the tides of opinion were never their most loyal subjects or their wisest advisers. The advisers who told King Canute that he could command the tides do not figure very well in our history, nor were they useful adjuncts to the Monarchy.
There are two ways of getting out of this situation. One is by disclosing the Queen's private fortune so that we should know how much the nation pays for the Monarchy by forgoing tax. However, it has been pointed out that there is an obvious objection to that course. Why should the Queen alone be subject to this


rule? The other and much better way through the difficulty is to ensure that the Queen's private fortune is subject to tax, like anybody else's income. I believe that this would have, as a first advantage, that, on balance, the nations' finances would be the gainer. We should have to grant a larger Civil List because, since the Queen would no longer be immune from tax, we could not ask her to foot the bill which is necessary to keep the Monarchy in style; but the tax on the private fortune would go into the Exchequer. On balance, the nation's finances would be decidedly the gainer, and it would remove the Queen's private fortune from argument and speculation and would make it, as it should be, a private matter between her and the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Carol Mather: Should not we bear in mind one small but important factor? Is not the cost of the upkeep of the Queen and the Monarchy smaller than the cost of the upkeep of our embassy in Paris?

Mr. Stewart: It would not surprise me if, before long, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was looking at embassies, along with other parts of public expenditure. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite grasped the point. I am not talking about the size of the bill; I am saying that immunity from tax exposes the Monarchy to unnecessary criticism. I am saying that this way of paying for the Monarchy by granting an inadequate Civil List, because the Queen does not have to pay income tax, is slovenly and an undignified way of going about the matter.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an amendment has been tabled to the Finance Bill, on Report, aimed at making the Queen subject to the new capital transfer tax?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of that amendment and I am interested in it. However, I shall not pursue the point now because I do not want to take too much time.
I conclude by making a historical and constitutional point. There is one objection which could be raised to my proposal by those who believe that the basis of our constitution and our Monarchy is that the Sovereign is the fountain from which

all law, justice and honour flow, and that she cannot be subject to the law. I should like, first, to point out that we have already breached that concept in practice. Rates are paid on Sandringham and Balmoral, and when the selective employment tax was imposed Her Majesty paid it on her employees. Therefore, the principle has been breached in practice. Also, the idea that the Monarchy can in no sense be subject to the law is contrary to a true reading of our history and ignores the way in which opinion is now moving.
Let me briefly state the historical argument. For centuries successive sovereigns at their coronations have taken an oath to respect the laws. The eminent jurist Bracton, in the thirteenth century, wrote that the sovereign has a superior—the law, by which he was made sovereign. Two centuries later, Lord Chief Justice Fortescue argued—his view is now generally accepted—that the realm of England was not, to use his phrase, "Dominium regale"—a Royal Government. It was a "Dominium politicum et regale"—a Royal and constitutional Government—a Monarchy acting within the framework of law.
I believe that this view of our constitution—that in the last resort the supremacy of the law should apply to the Sovereign—is the correct one and is more in line with a real understanding of the English people and the kind of Government that they have created.
Walter Bagehot, writing in the last century, said that the Monarchy would survive as long as men's hearts were stronger than thear heads. However, today, with the rising standards of knowledge and political awareness among our people, the maintenance of the Monarchy will require the assent of heads as well as of hearts. I believe that that can be done. I believe that a case can be made out for the Monarchy on the twin grounds of emotion and reason. I regard both as a necessary part of the argument. If we are to receive the assent of the head as well as the heart we shall do well to get rid of this immunity to tax, which is a stumbling block to many people who want the continuation of the Monarchy and which produces this extraordinary muddled financial way of providing for its necessary and proper expenses.
Therefore while I believe that it is right that the Government should obtain this order, I most earnestly urge my right hon. Friend, when he speaks, to indicate that the Government look favourably on the idea which others and I have put forward, so that the matter can be straightened out, and so that in future we can place the Monarchy on the solid basis of the assent both of the head and the heart of all its subjects.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I agree with much that has been said by Government supporters in criticism of the way in which this matter has been handled. To that extent I agree with the case made tonight in this Prayer.
Anyone who is not shocked by the announcement of this increase, in these economic circumstances, is curiously insensitive. I therefore think that it is right that we should be debating the matter, since I sympathise with most of the points made.
We must ask why it is necessary for the Government to announce this increase now. That was certainly my first reaction, since I could hardly believe that they had sufficient reason for doing so. I am not concerned with arguments which derive from a sleazy and envious republicanism. I hope that such arguments will not be advanced in this debate.
Following the point made by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) about the distinction between heart and mind, in matters of the Monarchy it is always well to be plain utilitarian rather than emotional. We must have a Head of State. Putting it at its worst, I would prefer what we have got to a superannuated politician posing in the rôle. We do not have to go through a list of names. Most of us can imagine the sort of person who would get the job. Most of the people in the list would be singularly unpleasing. A president would cost a lot of money, probably at least as much as the Monarchy, and, indeed, in many countries presidents cost a great deal more than our Monarchy.
I wish to ask some fundamentally important questions which arise out of the Civil List which we are being asked to approve. In 1972 Parliament provided an

annual payment of £980,000, which was not very long ago. That was thought sufficient to last for five years. The expenditure in 1972 was about £881,000 and there was a surplus of about £99,000. It was thought by the Royal Trustees, Parliament and the Select Committee that if that sum was accumulated and invested it would cover the deficits which would probably occur as a result of inflation in the four other years. How is it that that estimate, made in 1972, went so chaotically wrong in so short a time? The simple answer is inflation. However, we ought to beware of simple answers.
We are told that the Civil List expenditure in 1975 is likely to be £1,380,000. That is an increase of £498,000 on 1972, or an increase of 561½ per cent. Inflation has been rapid, but not all that rapid. If we take the period January 1972 to January 1975 the retail price index has increased by 44·7 per cent. We must therefore go beyond the simple answer of inflation to the component parts of the increase.
It is in these component parts that I think we find fundamental problems and difficult questions. I hope that the Chancellor will be able to give us one or two comments from the Government's point of view on those points. The position is made clear in the Report of the Royal Trustees, paragraph 4 of which states:
Almost three-quarters of the total is disbursed on salaries on the staff working in the Royal Household. The majority of these staff are paid salaries which are directly linked to those of comparable grades in the Civil Service and since 1972 they have received salaries similar to those awarded to members of the Civil Service.
It goes on:
This is the principal cause of the increase in Civil List expenditure.
Here we are dealing with the crux of the matter. This is one of the major scandals of public administration, and is a point on which I wish to dwell. Looking at Appendix II of the report, it is not difficult to calculate that, while the total Civil List expenditure rose between 1972 and 1974 by 33·9 per cent, the non-salary expenses of the household rose by 2038 per cent, while the salaries rose by 41·3 per cent., which is twice as fast.
If we look at the Palace estimates for 1975, the comparison is even more alarming. Between 1972 and 1975 total Civil List expenditure rose by 56½ per cent.,


but Household expenses rose by only 32·3 per cent. while salaries rose by 69·8 per cent., which is more than twice as fast. Since we are told by the Royal Trustees that the majority of the salaries are linked to Civil Service grades, there is nothing that the Palace can do about that part of the increase. It has cut the number of staff. The number of full-time employees has dropped from 375 in 1970 to 337.
I do not know whether any hon. Member is in a position to comment on whether that is a sufficient drop. However, outside consultants have been called in who seem to have produced, on the whole, a fair bill of health and efficiency. If the Palace has no control over the increase in salaries, which accounts for 80 per cent. of the total increase in expenditure which we are being asked to vote, Parliament should exercise control and cast a jaundiced eye over what has happened to Civil Service salaries, and, therefore, Palace salaries, in recent years. We have not considered this matter sufficiently. If this sort of expenditure increase has occurred in the Royal Household, Heaven knows what has happened in every Department of State.
If we start to look at the individual costs of administration in the Departments, we can see that the Civil Service has managed to run rings round any kind of expenditure control which this House is meant to operate. We can see it in the Boyle Report on top salaries, and that repays a close study. As I say, too little attention has been given to it. Obviously, we cannot debate the question of Civil Service salaries. It is a pity that we cannot. But it is a major part of the increase with which we are concerned and, therefore, it seems to me to be directly relevant.
All that the Government have done is to accept the recommendations of the Boyle Report for the Civil Service, and that has had an effect on Palace finances. At the same time, the Government have rejected the Boyle Report's recommendations for the nationalised industries. So we have one law for the administrators and another for those who create the wealth and who run our nationalised industries.
Do we have to pay the Palace staff this money? Do we have to pay our civil servants this kind of money? Other

countries do not. That is the important point which we have to consider.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point about the 80 per cent. on salaries, but that still leaves the question of the other 20 per cent. Does he not think it significant that we are presented in the report of the Trustees with an itemised account of the 20 per cent. which breaks down the total into items like the expenditure on flowers and other trivia, but that we do not know where the salaries figure went? That is the matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised. We do not know the make-up of the 80 per cent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Before the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) replies to that intervention, I ought to remind the House that the Front Bench speeches are to begin at nine o'clock and that there are still 10 hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the debate. I hope that hon. Members will be reasonably co-operative.

Mr. Pardoe: I take that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you will be aware that it is no fault of back benchers that so little time has been given to consider matters of very great importance to people throughout the country. I am asking the Government some serious questions about the way in which they have handled the affairs of the nation in terms of public administration, and I hope that we shall be given some answers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is not necessary to pay these civil servants and these Palace officials this kind of money. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).
If we look at the comparisons, we see that in this country in 1973 a permanent secretary, a top grade civil servant, was paid £15,900. The equivalent rank in Belgium was paid £9,790, and in France £9,565. It may be that we have higher rates of tax. But it is quite possible to do the calculation from the Boyle Report and compare the net salaries of industrialists against the net pay after tax of the permanent civil servant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well outwith the scope of the debate. We are not referring to civil servants.

Mr. Pardoe: I must remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it says in page 3 of the report of the Royal Trustees:
Almost three-quarters of the total is disbursed on salaries of the staff working in the Royal Household. The majority of these staff are paid salaries which are directly linked to those of comparable grades in the Civil Service …
If Civil Service salaries are not relevant to this debate, I should like to know what is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the salaries paid to permanent civil servants are outwith the scope of the matter that we are debating. A passing reference may be made to them. But the hon. Gentleman is referring to people who are not employed in the Royal Household and who, therefore, do not come within the ambit of this debate. I do not see any reason why the hon. Gentleman should be so het up about it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Perhaps I may help the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). Only eight of a total of 337 full-time members of the Household are linked to civil service grades for which increases were recommended in the Boyle Report. I shall be giving further figures when I reply to the debate.

Mr. Pardoe: I am not challenging that. I am simply using the figures in the Boyle Report as a comparison. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the signatories to the Trustees' Report. It says that the majority of the staff of the Royal Household are paid salaries which are directly linked to comparable grades in the Civil Service. It is part of my case that the reason why the Boyle Report had to recommend increases is that the pay of civil servants lower down the scale had also been increased and that that is why the Palace staff had to have their salaries increased.
I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though I must say that if this House proposes to conduct matters affecting public finance in this shoddy and half-hearted way we shall not be able to exercise control over public expen-

diture, which is our first and foremost function. Certainly it is mine, and I intend to pursue it whether or not I get hot under the collar about it.
We do not need to pay these salaries. They are vastly in excess of any salaries paid for similar jobs elsewhere. It is an investigation of the Civil Service for which we should look if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to try to cut down on the escalation of Royal Household costs in the future. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, these two matters are directly linked.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I feel that we ought to make it clear what this debate is about. It is not about the existence or otherwise of the Monarchy. It is not about the Civil Service—though I have some sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). It is about open government.
When I hear Opposition Members expressing disbelief or derision at some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) about the way in which this matter has been slipped in at the end of business on a Friday in a Written Answer, I am bound to say that if that attitude is representative of their point of view, never again can they complain about other statements of Government business which have been introduced in that way.
I deplore the way in which any controversial statement is included in a hole-and-corner way. All Governments have been guilty of this practice, and it is one which back benchers ought to curb. I find it strange that right hon. and hon. Members who get so indignant about the lack of proper monitoring of public expenditure should think that when we are concerned with the position of the Monarch's finances those principles must fall aside.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) made his position clear. He said that he was a Monarchist. I make my own position clear. I take the view that this country will remain a Monarchy for the foreseeable future. I am much more concerned with abolishing capitalism than with changing the structure of the headship of State. As


my right hon. Friend indicated, some of the people who speak most stridently in favour of the Monarchy are its worst supporters, because in trying to protect them from the scrutiny of this House they are inevitably bringing the Monarchy within the scope of public controversy.
A point which needs to be emphasised, and which my right hon. Friend did not develop to the full, is that ours is no longer a deferential society. More and more frequently authority is being questioned. Some manifestations of the challenge to authority are unreasonable and unpleasant. One way in which authority is being challenged is manifest in the growth of crime. But there are other ways in which our society is a questioning one, and in that sense it is healthy. We no longer defer to the boss, to the priest—

Mr. James Dempsey: Or to the Whips.

Mr. Lee: No, we do not defer to them, either. I know not whether that was intended as a facetious intervention, but it amply illustrates the point of view that within the last 15 years more and more hon. Members have been prepared, for one reason or another—good or bad—to defy the authority of the Whips. Why should the Monarchy be exempt from this? To put it another way, would it help the Monarchy if we were to prevent this happening? I do not believe that it would help at all.
I accept and endorse the argument that if we are to have a Monarchy we should do it properly. I do not know whether I shall get into trouble with the Chair for saying this but I have never thought that Queen Juliana's bottom on a bicycle was a particularly romantic object, or one likely to secure the allegiance of her people. I do not believe the Monarchy should be abolished without, dare I say it, the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people.
While we have a Monarchy it is right that it should be properly maintained. What cannot be right is that there should be licence, under the cloak of secrecy, for what may well be wasteful expenditure. As some of my hon. Friends as well as Conservative Members have urged, it may be that if all the facts about the Monarch's wealth were known it would

be seen that the order was amply justified. Until those facts are known we cannot take that for granted.
As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) pointed out—taking perhaps a rather unrepresentative segment of expenditure but using it quite properly to challenge the Chancellor—we are led to the strong suspicion that we do not know, and that if we did know more about the expenditure it would be embarrassing, because waste would be revealed. While the portion of total Government expenditure on the Monarchy is minute, it is an unfortunate situation, to put it no higher, that this kind of order should be sprung upon the House at a time when the Government are seeking to sustain the social contract.
Some of us may feel that the social contract should be overturned. I do not subscribe to that view, but some of my hon. Friends do, and there are certainly quite a number of people in the country who do. This kind of tactless, insensitive behaviour—this maladroit way in which the Government have behaved—is just the kind of thing that will fuel that discontent. It will do the Government no good, it will do the economy no good, it will do the Monarchy no good, and it will do the country no good.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: It is a matter of satisfaction to everyone that every speaker in the debate has made protestations to the effect that the question of the Monarchy is not before us. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) that society today is not deferential in the way we have used that expression in the past. Still society today, and everyone in it, needs standards to look up to. I dare say that each person or institution has some other personal institution which they admire or pretend to admire. I dare say that even the hon. Gentleman in court pretends to admire the judge, in the interests of his client no doubt.
Despite these protestations, I cannot rid myself of the feeling that this evening will in the long term be seen as an attack upon our constitution and way of life. There are those, not many, who lose no opportunity to bring into doubt or contempt the institutions which uphold our democracy. The opportunity to attack


the Monarchy seldom arises, except for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who can attack the Monarchy twice before breakfast without any reason at all.

Mr. William Hamilton: Three times.

Mr. Kershaw: This is a chance to discuss the financial aspects of the Monarchy, and it is not to be passed up. It is a pity that rational argument carries no weight. Those who protest the difficulties of the Monarchy give all the good arguments freely to those who support it. It is in vain that we point out how cheap the Monarchy is in comparison with other systems. It is useless to indicate the advantages of a non-political head of State. There is no point in saying that the existence of several members of the Royal Family allows more representational work to be done than could be accomplished by one president.
It is in vain also to refer to the position of the Crown in relation to the Commonwealth and the dependent territories. It is useless to refer to the excellence of the Monarch herself, because every day that she enhances her post is just what the Left do not want. Arguments of that sort are of no avail. All those outside the House who wish to see these attacks succeed are happy in the thought that something of what they wish will be accomplished tonight. However, the vast majority of us are satisfied at the way in which the Monarchy discharges its duties. It has dignity and decorum which are revered in the whole country. We do not want a shabby Monarchy, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth said.
The sums asked for are necessary to replace the ravages of inflation. If the civil servants are being too highly paid, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, that matter can be settled in the usual union ways. It is not the fault of the Crown. If the Crown is to maintain the degree of state which is consonant with our own self-respect and the position of this country, it is necessary for these sums to be made up. No more is being asked for than is necessary to make up for inflation. The Secretary of State for Employment can be confident that this is within the social contract.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman said that no more was being asked for than to meet the ravages of inflation. How does he account for an 800 per cent. increase in one year on the Royal Gardens itemised on page 7 of the Royal Trustees' Report?

Mr. Kershaw: Some expenditure falls in one year but not in another. It is stated in the text of the report before us that that is what inflation demands.
I turn now to the leakages which have been mentioned in the Press. The fact that there were leakages is disgraceful, but what was leaked was in no way reprehensible. It is obvious that Heads of State and international institutions should not be involved in take-over manoeuvres. The clause which would have been debated in both House of Parliament seems not only necessary but desirable.
I hope that this debate will not be the precursor of many another. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that if we could have an index-linked way to deal with the Monarchy in future, it would be much better for our tempers and for the Monarchy, which every speaker in the debate has upheld.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: That stops now, because my views on the Monarchy are well known.
I should like to remind the House and the country that less than three hours ago I was chairing the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage, which was considering the problem of battered wives and children. These people giving evidence before that Committee said that their principal centre in Chiswick needed a few thousand pounds to maintain it alive at all. Yet, looking at Appendix IV of the Trustees' Report—the figures were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in moving the Prayer—we find that Princess Alexandra got £22,000, tax-free, in 1974. Less than half of that sum would have enabled that home in Chiswick to survive and prosper and make happy 100 or 200 battered women and children.
The Duke of Kent received £30,000, tax-free, in 1974. [Interruption.] I promise to devote only a few minutes to


what I want to say, because I have said a lot on these matters elsewhere.
It is obscene and indefensible that at any time we should grant this money to this kind of person in the present economic and social situation of this country.
This House and, I am afraid, my right hon. Friends, agreed that we should have no more Select Committees to go into detailed expenditure on the Monarchy. Therefore, we are now having to resort to this kind of debate, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said we are to have annually. So long as we have a debate of this kind annually, I shall seek to take part and say what I feel must be said.
Let no one believe that the people of this country are any other than evenly divided on the institution of the Monarchy. [Hon. Members: "Rubbish ".] I challenge any hon. Member to open my mail any morning. I guarantee that the majority of letters on this subject are against the Monarchy as an institution and are particularly against what are called the hangers-on.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: No, I shall not give way. I promised to be brief. I intend to say my piece.
When we debated the report of the Civil List Committee a year or two ago, the only amendment which the Labour Party officially divided on was on the question whether or not we should create a Crown Department of State. This is the answer. I hope that the Government, and the Prime Minister particularly—he is the nigger in the woodpile in all this—will follow that vote and decide to set up such a Department. Then, all these things could be laid out, including income and expenditure; we could have annual debates, and Ministers could be questioned. Then, there would be the degree of public accountability which is necessary for this institution.
There is no magic about the Royal Family. They are no more than glorified civil servants, one of them with a crown on her head. They open things, close things and eat things—and that is about it. We can have all the pomp and colour and pageantry along with it if

that attracts Yanks and Germans, and anybody else. Leave that alone, and let them come and see our wonderful museum. But let us have none of the nonsense about their being divinely ordained, and things of that sort.
I could go on for two hours easily, but I shall be brief. I see in this morning's newspapers that the Prime Minister has threatened to withdraw his patronage from junior Ministers if they do not toe the line in the vote tonight—and there will be a vote tonight. Ministers can have a free vote on the Common Market, but, by God, when we come to this matter all the payroll votes along the Government Front Bench have got to toe the line, or else they will get their snouts taken out of the gravy bowl. Let them stand up and be counted. They have stood up on Chile, and they have stood up on apartheid. Now let them stand up on this miserable little thing.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will no doubt give us a marvellous speech about the service rendered by the Palace household. Of course I do not deny that the gardeners, the butlers, the valets, and all the rest, do a good public service. All right—so do all civil servants. But let them sit the Civil Service exams; 90 per cent. of them would probably fail. Let us put it on that kind of footing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) suggested taxation of the Royal Household. Let us have a referendum on it. We are establishing the principle of a referendum, are we not, on another issue? Let us have one on this matter and see what the result is.
One item in the report of the Civil List Committee deserves publicity. It is said—the Prime Minister said it in his statement a week or two ago—that the Queen would contribute some of her private income. How is that private income obtained, other than by the freedom from taxation that she is granted? She gets a payment from the Duchy of Lancaster, which is presumed to be her own private property. She got £230,000, tax-free, from that in 1968–69 and it is now up to £300,000, tax-free.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady must keep cool.
To get a net income of £300,000—that is, unearned income—one would need a taxable income of over £14 million. That is the kind of cost of the Monarchy that we are talking about. It is these facts that the public should know, and they are going to get them in the annual debates, to which I am looking forward very much.

8.40 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is one of the few hon. Members who are not afraid of going into either Lobby, whichever he thinks fit. He is certainly not worried on that score.
Both the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) paid tribute, rightly, to the tremendous work done for this country by the Monarchy and the whole of the Royal Family. I do not believe that anyone who has spoken in this debate has not recognised that, but today we are talking about the way in which that Monarchy should be supported. This is the crux of the whole situation.
I happen to believe that we shall do very good service to ourselves and everybody else if we remove this matter once and for all from party politics and remove the Civil List from party politics if that is possible. We had a debate on this in 1972, and many hon. Members who were present thought that that probably would be the last of such debates. But, as we all know, inflation has overtaken us, and it is for that reason that we have had to revise the estimates. I do not think anybody in this House would deny that this debate has been made necessary by something which none of us foresaw when that last debate took place. We could not have done so.
Surely, the best way of regulating this is to do it once in a reign and leave it, for it cannot be a good thing continually to debate this subject or to go into such details every single year or every few years. It is a waste of time and it is unnecessary. We ought to decide what is necessary for the reign and then make any adjustment for inflation. After the last debate representatives of the civil

servants union wrote to me and said they were very impressed that some hon. Members had paid tribute to the work done by those who are employed in the Royal Palaces. They work extremely hard, and I should like to pay tribute to them for that.
We have now to take intermediate action to remedy the position and to deal with the immediate problem. That is exactly what the Government are doing. We welcome the generous donation of £150,000 which Her Majesty the Queen has given. If we want to maintain the dignity of the Monarchy we have to pay for it. If we look round the world I believe we shall find that we maintain our Royal Family at very much lower cost than many other countries do their Head of State.
We have to distinguish also between personal wealth and the amount of money we actually spend on maintaining the Monarchy. It is for that reason that I take issue with a point made by the right hon. Member for Fulham. I do not believe that in any State a Head of State should be liable for personal taxation, because taxation emanates from that Head of State.

Mr. Lee: That is what Mr. Nixon thought.

Dr. Glyn: If one goes carefully through the constitution one finds that the Monarchy is the foundation of all taxes and all wealth. This particular system has served us very well. From time to time the Royal Trustees will have to adjust any form of income. I should have thought that the alternative would be one which has been suggested by the Crown Estates, for more revenues to be made available to the Monarchy so that there would be no need for us to have to come back to debate this subject every year or every five years. We in this country do not want to have to debate this subject continuously. It is only because of the rate of inflation in this country that we are obliged continuously to come back to this matter and look at it again. It would be far easier to make the revenue from the Crown Estates available to the Monarchy with a percentage being made available for its use. We should not then have continuously to debate this in this House. The pattern has always been that this should be done once in a reign. It is only because of the very rapid rise in the rate


of inflation that we are forced to do this again.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: If we accept the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in relation to that, and that the central point is the question of income and so on, does he not agree that we have established a way of doing this known as the means test, and that this would be the best way of meeting the situation?

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman has a very good point. The reason why we have to come back to the House on this matter is purely and simply the rate of inflation. Normally this matter is dealt with once during a reign. But if we continue with this rate of inflation, we do not want to have to return to the House continually to readjust the income of the Sovereign. That is wrong. We should do this once during a reign. If that is not possible, the easiest way to deal with the matter is to make the revenues of the Crown Estates available to the Monarch, or a reasonable proportion, adjustable to inflation, should be made available.
I hope that the next step will be to make sure that we fix this matter so that we do not continually debate it, for it does not do the country or the Monarch any good. It wastes parliamentary time. Let us revert to the system of fixing the sum once during a reign and adjusting it according to inflation.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) finished his speech or is he giving way?

Dr. Glyn: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Palmer: Surely historically, in the nineteenth century these allowances throughout Queen Victoria's reign were continually debated.

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman is right. But this is not the right way of doing it. The best way is to fix it for a reign and to adjust it for inflation. The only easy way to do this is to make the Crown Estates available to the Monarchy, with

automatic methods of adjustment. It does not do the Monarchy or Parliament any good to debate this matter every five or 10 years.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I am a very strong believer in the maintenance and continuation of the constitutional Monarchy in this country. The large majority of the Royal Family, including those most disliked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), do a very thankless task in very difficult circumstances. I do not believe that any other system would be preferable or more desirable, nor do I believe that any other system would be cheaper. If we examine other systems throughout the world, we find that nearly all are more expensive than our constitutional Monarchy.
Furthermore, we do not want to skimp unnecessarily on the Monarchy. It is no bad thing for our people occasionally to have a little pomp and circumstance, which some of my intellectual friends so often decry. It is very interesting to note that when the Queen visits any town, the flags are put out very largely in the working-class areas rather than in the intellectual middle-class areas. A certain amount of this pomp and circumstance is not a bad thing.
Having said that, I believe that there are certain economies that we should examine very carefully, particularly on the fringes. I am not sure whether all the Royal residences around the country are necessary in this modern age. I am certainly not sure that the vast sums of money which are spent on the Royal yacht are necessary, but I agree that the Queen needs more money to maintain the essential fabric of the Monarchy and to pay her staff.
I query very much with the Government—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved)—the moment of the announcement of this increase. It could not have come at a worse psychological moment. Whatever Opposition Members may say, it has a psychological effect, just as the top salaries award had a psychological effect earlier in the year. I am a strong believer in the maintenance of the social contract. When I talk to trade unionists in my constituency and tell them


what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is telling them regularly—"You really ought to try to moderate your wage claims as much as possible in the interests of the nation, otherwise there will be massive unemployment"—they say to me "You are saying that to me, when I am earning £40 a week, but what about the money you are giving to the Queen, and giving in top salaries?" It is very difficult to answer that question.
An important point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart). If it is found that we need to increase the sum in the Civil List by a certain amount, it is very undignified that we should expect the Queen to pay part of it by some sort of backstage deal. If we agree on a certain figure as the rate for the job, we, as a country and as a Parliament, should pay it. I shall oppose this order and vote against the Government unless we can get certain undertakings.
The real point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. I cannot see the justification, in this age, for the private fortune of the Royal Family to be free of tax. In my opinion, they should pay income tax, capital gains tax, capital transfer tax and, when it is introduced, wealth tax. Then there could be no criticism at all, and we could adjust what we, as a nation, pay the Royal Family through the Civil List. We might even increase the amount, but we should be doing it fairly. We would not receive the sort of criticism which many of us now get, that the Royal Family get away with it in respect of taxes. This is even more important, now that the Government are bringing in capital transfer tax and wealth tax. If the private fortunes of the Royal Family were exempt it would be a scandal.
My vote tonight will depend fairly and squarely on what the Government's answer is. I am not asking for a full disclosure of the private wealth of the Monarchy. I do not think it is our business, any more than it is our business how much the Prime Minister made out of his autobiography, or how great is the private wealth of the Leader of the Opposition, or, for that matter, the royalties which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will make out of his book. That is none of our

business. But we want to be assured that it is the business of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family were subject to tax, through the Inland Revenue, in the same way as every other citizen in this country, I would happily vote for the order. I do not want some vague assurance that the matter will be considered in the future. I want something definite, otherwise I shall vote against the order.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I do not wish to intervene in the internal differences which have appeared in the Labour Party on this subject. May I say, although the Leader of the House is not here, how disappointed many back-bench Members are that apparently the Front Benches have decided to have one hour in which to sum up and that the rest of the House is to have one and three-quarter hours. That does not seem to me to be a fair balance. However, that is not a matter for me, or for you, Mr. Speaker.
I oppose the Prayer, which is unsound, uncivilised and somewhat mean and carping. After all, we are debating something which most hon. Members opposite hold dear as an institution—incidentally, the oldest institution in Europe, with the exception of the Papacy. It is certainly something of which most people in this country are proud as a vital part of our constitution. As many hon. Members have said, it is marvellous value for the money. Most of us count ourselves fortunate, as do our constituents, that we have such a dedicated Queen and Royal Family to set an example to the whole nation.
It has been made clear time and time again, although not understood apparently by the BBC and others, that we are today debating not the Queen's pay or personal income but necessary payments to be made by her to her Household to enable her to discharge all her public duties in a fitting manner. All of us in this House know only too well that costs for everyone have gone up enormously, and the Queen's official expenditure cannot be immune or isolated from this trend. I am amused by the protests of some hon. Members opposite, because if this Prayer were to succeed there would have to be


a reduction in the numbers employed by the Royal Household, so there would have to be a diminution of the functions held. Having seen many hon. Members opposite enjoying themselves—quite rightly—at the afternoon parties. I fear these are things which they would themselves very much miss.
I disagree entirely with hon. Members opposite who say that their views are echoed by the general public. My views on the issue of Monarchy, as on the House of Lords, are well known, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have not received a single letter opposing either the Monarchy or the House of Lords. We know that most people love and enjoy the Royal pageantry flowing from the Royal house. It plays a very important part in our public life, which might otherwise be somewhat drab if the public saw only us poor politicians. As previous speakers have said, it reminds the nation of our history, it unites us all as a people and it gives us a standard and something to live up to. Ceremony and splendour are very important, and those of us who watched the Prime Minister's visit to Russia will realise, remembering the Napoleonic uniforms of the Russian Guards, their marching, the bands and the banners, that in Russia too these things are regarded as important.
I believe the argument is specious that the Queen should pay out of her private moneys for the upkeep of the Monarchy. We do not ask the Prime Minister or any other official to do that, so why should we ask the Queen?
Many hon. Members opposite have made much of the fact that the Queen, who levies taxes—the taxes are all levied in her name—should tax herself. That, I believe, would be a constitutional absurdity.
Finally, for all the moderation which we have heard from speakers on the other side of the House, I am very much afraid that this Prayer is nothing but a veiled attack on the Monarchy without, I believe, either substance or justice. I hope the House will reject it with the contempt it deserves.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I have repeatedly been astonished this evening to hear four hon. Members from the

other side of the House—the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), and now, indeed, Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes)—asking, indeed advocating, that we take the whole business of the awards, pay—call it what you will—of the Monarchy out of the business of this House.
It appears to me that a great deal of time—in fact, hundreds of years of time—and a great deal of blood and courage were expended on drawing the relationship that we now have with the Monarchy, which indeed makes it a constitutional Monarchy, of this country. If we are not fit people to decide on an annual basis what and how the Queen shall be paid and what her accompanying appurtenances should receive, there is no one fit to do it because we are the elected representatives of the people and we draw our particular constitutional status and situation from our relationship with the Monarchy.
If there is a constitutional absurdity it is that we should try to fix, according to the suggestions that have been made, the pay or awards to the Crown on the basis of a reign with increases simply indexed during the course of it. We should have a Crown Department so that we could give proper and full attention to the whole matter on an annual basis and clear away the many mists that surround the whole question of the Queen's personal and private wealth and the taxpayer's contribution to the Queen and the remainder of the Royal Household.
Therefore, I shall be giving the strongest possible support to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in the Lobby as well as in what I have to say. We are now considering paying an extra award to the richest woman in Britain, one of the richest women in the world. Do not let anyone fool himself into believing that this is not a pay award. If it is not a direct payment it is an immense relief against the kind of outlay that Her Majesty would have to make were it not for the generosity of the British taxpayer and the generosity of Parliament in terms of the order.
If, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on 12th


February, we are considering this question merely because Her Majesty has been afflicted by all the inflationary problems which afflict large employers, I seriously consider that it is time we undertook a job inspection of Her Majesty as an employer. First, there are widespread rumours that much of her staff is seriously low paid, and there is also a widely held feeling that those who presume to be senior executives in what I may call "The Crown Limited" are outrageously overpaid, some of them being relieved of tax and others getting too much for doing nothing.
I speak, of course, of the close relations of Her Majesty the Queen who get such enormous sums from the public purse in one way or another. Some of them have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. This does not fall strictly within the question of the Civil List and I do not wish to stray out of order. Perhaps I could simply say that they receive sums of between £22,000 in the case of Princess Alice of Gloucester and £65,000 in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh. These are taxed but nevertheless they receive gratuitous awards for no fixed job that my hon. Friends and I and many people outside the House can understand, and it is not a fair payment for what they do.
Apart from the question of whether Her Majesty is a major employer and whether there is a case for a major pruning of the upper echelons of those who are in the service of the Crown, there is also the question of the immense riches of which we are talking. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew attention in his statement on 12th February to the fact that the Queen was disposed to make a £150,000 contribution towards the expenses of the Civil List in 1975. The thought that sprang immediately to my mind and to my lips was "What a magnificent example to us all." Would it not be wonderful if we could all make that proportionate contribution to the care which the State provides for our parents, our children or ourselves? What a magnificent example such a contribution is—and I say this without irony—to the people in our country, to the 3 million homeless, to the 7 million pensioners and to those who, even though they are in

work, are under the most immense strain of poverty and near poverty. I cannot accept that Her Majesty's contribution is a source of virtue or that it is particularly praiseworthy. And in the circumstances of our nation at this moment, with the social and economic problems we face, we can do nothing other than make our protest and make our opinions felt by voting against the order tonight.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) spoke of the blood that had been shed in past centuries in battles between the Monarchy and Parliament, and in defining the rôle of those two. Listening to the speeches of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) I rather wished that Charles I had won the Civil War, if only because he would have succeeded in his main aim of clipping the wings of one or two obstreperous parliamentarians.

Mr. William Hamilton: But he did not.

Mr. William Molloy: Why does not the hon. Gentleman resign?

Mr. Aitken: Although many of the speeches have been couched in the dulcet language of Inland Revenue accountants, I believe that the spirit behind the moving of the Prayer has been that of an envious pack of Republican wolves rather ineffectively disguised in tax-snoopers' clothing. We have heard a lot of phoney protest about the social contract, which is in tatters anyway, and there has been a demand for full disclosure of Royal finances. These moves conceal the real effect of the Prayer, which would be to set us one small but significant step down the slippery slope of changing the institution of the Monarchy towards a different institution, fully accountable to Parliament.
If we attack and criticise the privileges of the Monarchy as it has been attacked tonight, we shall have the bad effect of stripping it of some of its mystique and prestige.
Although we have heard a lot about the swelling ranks of discontented constituents, worried about the state of the


Monarchy, we have heard no evidence, other than the details of the rather dubious postbag of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, to suggest that they are anything but a phantom army.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of our people think that the Monarchy should have certain privileges. They do not mind whether it has certain privileges in law, or is immune from taxation. Only envy has brought us to this low point in British politics.
Since so many of the arguments have concentrated on the mercenary side of the question, I shall try briefly to put forward some points which show that even on a balance-sheet basis the Monarchy is still a desirable asset for the country. It costs us peanuts. The Civil List today costs less than 3p per head of population. The costs of doing the job has gone up because even the Royal Household is not immune from inflation. That is why we have had the increases. It is humbug for hon. Members, who were so silent when we put up our own allowances for secretaries because we could not afford their cost, to make such a song and dance when the Royal Household salaries have also increased, because the Queen's staff were unable to do the job properly on their previous salaries.
The Monarchy gives us tremendous value for money. If we count up the engagements fulfilled, the ceremonies performed, the good will visits and the Heads of State received in this country, we come to the conclusion that we could not have a more diligent and hardworking Monarch, who could give the country better value. When we weigh up what the Queen does for the nation and what she costs the nation, we come to the conclusion that we are getting a wonderful bargain, and we should stop making such a fuss about it.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: It is becoming demonstrably clear from the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members that they seek to imply that certain of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) are orgiastically anti-Monarchy. That is not the situation at all.
It is disturbing that only a few weeks ago we were debating the question whether some old-age pensioners should have the right to earn an extra couple of bob in addition to their pension. We were told that the Government could not afford to allow them to earn that extra money without deduction. That is what we were told, and that argument was supported by some Conservative Members. If the contents of this measure were known, and if people understood that the Government are asking for an increase of the financial provision of the Civil List, it would be appreciated that I could present perhaps a couple of thousand similar orders on behalf of the old-age pensioners in my constituency.
The result of the absurd arguments that we have heard tonight is that it may seem that all my hon. Friends are anti-Monarchy. It must be realised that throughout the country many people genuinely believe as I do that it is infinitely preferable to have our Monarchy than some of the shady presidents that exist in other countries. Very often that sort of president is much more expensive. The fact that that sort of president exists in other places is no reason for us not to protect the good name of our monarchical system and to allow it to fall into disrepute.
Owing to the unfortunate behaviour of the Government in presenting this matter the wrong impression may be gained outside the House. We all know that were it not for the present inflationary period and the difficult economic situation this issue would probably not have arisen. It has arisen now only because there is a considerable discussion taking place outside the House on the question whether or not one of the richest people in the world should be excused paying tax. It is an issue that has arisen at a time when there is a great argument about the level of taxation that we have to impose on the crippled, the infirm and the old-age pensioners. That is what ordinary people cannot understand.
It would be wrong if people were anti-Crown and anti-Monarchy for the wrong reasons. We have a responsiblity to try to explain the situation in precise terms.

Sir Paul Bryan: rose—

Mr. Molloy: No, I do not have time to give way.

Sir P. Bryan: Does the hon. Member—

Mr. Molloy: No, I am not giving way. I understand that I must conclude within two minutes. I regret to say that unless people read carefully the submissions of my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Crayford and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham—they have made major contributions in outlining the reality of the situation—there is the danger that their speeches will not be properly interpreted as the best contributions that have been made in defence of the Monarchy against some of the absurdities that we have heard from Conservative Members.
I sincerely believe that were it not for the difficult economic situation which we now face—I believe that the House will accept this point of view, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)—this debate would probably not have taken place. That does not mean that it is not a good thing that it has taken place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pay particular attention to the pleas that have been made by my hon. Friends that consideration be given to the establishment of a Crown Department of State, so that we can end some of the absurdities and stupidities that now exist in relation to the Monarchy and the Queen's statutory position as Head of State. Let us get this done once and for all, so that we can be proud of our Monarchy, and so that the hangers-on and the "grace and favour" people can be brushed away, leaving the system much better for it.

9.15 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the Home Secretary said in an earlier debate on this subject, it is not easy to find such a debate either enjoyable or exhilarating. I say that not because I have any doubts about the substance of the order against which the Prayer is made; indeed, I offer whole-hearted support for the order, as I am sure do all my hon. and right hon. Friends. My unease arises because of the extent to which a debate of this kind exposes Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family who are not merely a central feature of our constitution but part of the

fabric of our nation's life, to criticism and abuse which, for all the protestations of hon. Members opposite, they do not deserve to have to bear.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said that he was asserting his argument respectfully and diligently. His diligence was a great deal more evident than was his respect. Then we came to the familiar rehearsal of the observations of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), some of which, even in the short time he allowed himself, were as ill-mannered as they were ill-informed—and I use that word advisedly.
The second reason for regretting the debate is the extent to which it demonstrates the impact of inflation on the Monarchy as on every other aspect of our national life.
I will say a word about the position of the Monarchy. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to its importance, some with less conviction than others. This certainly has not been, and should not be, a matter of political controversy, and I am certain that outside the House amongst the majority of the people it is not.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) advanced a curious argument against some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends when he asserted that by trying to protect the Monarchy they were bringing it into the area of controversy. He was almost accusing Androcles of trying to pick a fight with the lion. It is not those who seek to defend the Monarchy, as do the great mass of people outside the House, who bring the Monarchy and the institution into controversy; it is the unrepresentative handful who assert the case so unattractively against it.
It is right in a debate of this kind that I should reassert that the Monarchy is a central feature of our constitution. The great mass of our people recognise and acclaim the fact that we are governed by the Queen in Parliament and recognise the important constitutional rôle of the Monarchy as a unifying factor for the entire people. The fact that we are a Monarchy and not a republic helps to emphasise that the issues which divide are far less important than those which unite us as a nation.
It is not simply that the Monarchy is more inspiring than a presidency, although it is certainly that. It is not just that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) pointed out—it is more efficient and less expensive than any system for the election or selection of a president, although it is certainly that. It is more important than either of those things because it is a less divisive and more secure foundation for a constitutional democracy founded in the rule of law than is any alternative that anyone has been able to devise in its place.
It is made manifest near at home in Scandinavia, and around the world in all those Commonwealth countries which still owe allegiance to Her Majesty, that it is indeed a firm foundation for a democratic society.

Mr. Lee: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has extended his argument at some length as to the reasons why he regards the Monarchy as important. Will he answer this question, which is perhaps pertinent: does the new Leader of the Opposition intend to resume the creation of hereditary peerages, and will they be confined to members of the Royal Family?

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman made a speech of some prolixity. I am sorry that I allowed him to make another.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As boring as the first.

Sir G. Howe: The fact is that Her Majesty and the Royal Family—and it is a fact that it is the family that is important—play an infinite variety of rôles in our national life. The Queen is a better promoter of the cause and reputation of Britain abroad—I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I make this comment as a former Minister who had responsibility in this direction—and her efforts are infinitely more valuable and far less expensive than all the efforts of the Export Credit Guarantee Department and the British Overseas Trade Board put together.
I am sure that the whole House wishes to congratulate Her Majesty and her family on the outstanding success of their current visit to Mexico. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Within this country, on a quite different scale, the Queen is an

inspiration—and this point was made by the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). In hundreds of communities and institutions, small and large, throughout the length and breadth of the land, she fulfils hundreds of engagements a year in every area of national life—from sport to charity, from moments of national rejoicing to moments of local tragedy and disaster. The hon. Member for Fife, Central, laughs.

Mr. William Hamilton: Of course I do when the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes such a point.

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman represents a mining community. Let him reflect on the extent to which the people who were stricken by the tragedy of Aberfan, with which I was closely concerned, were heartened by the prompt attendance in that tragic community by members of the Royal Family.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. William Hamilton: Let my hon. Friend speak for Aberfan. He knows about it better than you do.

Sir G. Howe: It is quite wrong to suggest as some Labour Members seek to do, that the Monarch presides over a court of isolated wealth and privilege. It is a court, if that is the right word, which is in daily contact with the life of ordinary people for whom those hon. Members claim to speak. It involves a weary routine for the Monarch herself—a volume of work and a degree of strain which few, if any, in this House would be able, or would wish, to bear in her place.
Of course hon. Members and people outside the House are entitled to ask whether the institution is unduly extravagant, incompetently-managed or lavishly-financed. I would say that it is none of those things. [AN HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I am asked how I know. Let us look at the facts. The facts are analysed at enormous length in the report of the last Select Committee on this topic. The management of the Royal Household has also been subject to two management studies, it has been closely scrutinised since then by a report of the Royal Trustees. They came to the conclusion that further economies are still being made. The facts


are fully set out for hon. Members to study.
Against that background, we must face the fact that the expense of maintaining the institution has inevitably increased. Of course, it is right that the proposals that are now before the House should be scrutinised with care. But when we scrutinise them, as the Royal Trustees have done, what do we see? We find proved beyond a peradventure, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), that this is in no sense a Royal pay rise. On the contrary, the results of those recommendations represent, if anything, a decline in real living standards of the Monarch and her family—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The noises from the Labour benches demonstrate the extent to which the real nature of the extra payments which are now proposed is misunderstood by those hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Itchen said that he had received complaints from people who were talking about "All this money you are giving the Queen." He said that there were complaints from people as to whether the increase proposed in the Civil List represents a proper assessment of the rate for the job. He should have said instantly to those people that they wholly misunderstood what was happening. There is no increase in the payment to the Queen. It has nothing to do with the rate payable for the job which she does. The sum proposed will meet the huge rise, because of inflation, in the Queen's expenses, which she incurs as a result of her official functions and duties. The Civil List provides only for the huge rise in expenses since 1972.
It was suggested that there should be an investigation into the position of the Queen's employees, seeking to imply that the Queen might be underpaying some of her employees, and that some other members of her staff were hopelessly overpaid. Both of those propositions are false.
The Queen's staff are represented by the Civil Service Union. That union has secured substantial pay rises—the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) may be right—of up to 70 per cent., but in line with Civil Service pay scales. There is no suggestion that those staff are under-

paid. The representative of the union, in giving evidence to the Select Committee, said that his union was quite happy to go along with the unique nature of this employment. I understand that. There is no suggestion of inflation in the number of staff, since there has been a steady staff reduction from 421 to 337 in the past 12 years.
The order deals with one other matter, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. I refer to the increase from £60,000 to £85,000 in the sums payable under Section 5 of the 1972 Act. The hon. Gentleman referred to it as a tax-free addition to the incomes of the people whose work and activities he seeks to denounce. How many times does one have to set out in black and white what this is? In any case it does not justify the application, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, of petty epithets such as "obscene" which the hon. Gentleman used. Those sums are paid as a contribution to the expenses of the people in question. Those sums are not subject to income tax any more than are the contributions paid towards the expenses of hon. Members for the employment of secretaries. The report of the Trustees makes that clear.
According to the answer of the Minister last Monday, those expenses are more than absorbed by the people employed by members of the Royal Family.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken.

Sir G. Howe: There is nothing with which to enlarge the Privy Purse. There is nothing here with which to improve living standards. On the contrary, Her Majesty has agreed to pay, from her own resources, £150,000 towards the expenses of the Civil List in the current year. This should not be described as a Royal pay rise. I hope that that phrase will never again be used. This sum is no more than a proper and inevitable increase in the sum the nation agrees to pay for the maintenance of the institution of the Monarchy. It was bizarre to hear the hon. Member for Fife, Central saying that there should be a referendum on whether the sum should be paid. It is odd that members of a party which is pledged to a referendum that will cost the country up to £8 million should find


it difficult to agree to the payment of £280,000.
There is one other matter which was raised in the thoughtful speech of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart). It relates to the non-disclosure of the size of the Royal private fortune and the limited immunity of the Monarch from taxation. I was glad to hear that no Government supporter sought to deal with that by pressing for disclosure of the Queen's private fortune and private expenditure, and that the alternative suggested was a change in the tax system.
Here, too, there is a misunderstanding. Apart from the Queen herself, the Prince of Wales is the only member of the Royal Family who enjoys any exemption from liability to tax—

Mr. William Hamilton: That is not true.

Sir G. Howe: It will be confirmed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that immunity relates only to the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall, half the income of which His Royal Highness makes available to the Treasury again. Every other member of the Royal Family is taxable, like every private citizen.
The position raised by the right hon. Member for Fulham was founded on two arguments why we should make a change. First, he said that by taxing the revenues and capital of the Crown we should save the Exchequer some money. That would happen only if we were seeking thereby to bring about a lowering in the standards of the Monarchy. It would not be possible overall to save the Exchequer money and to reduce the net outflow from the Exchequer to the Monarch without lowering the standards of the Monarchy.
The right hon. Member for Fulham sought also to argue that there was some legal reason for the immunity and that that was perhaps the foundation. I do not seek to found a defence of the continuance of that immunity upon aspects of antique medieval law, though I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I found the present and continuing immunity of the Monarch from taxation on the unique nature of the Sovereign and the unique nature of the Royal Prerogative—upon the fact that the sovereign position of the Queen makes it unacceptable and un-

necessary that she should be liable to pay tax.
It is absurd to deal with the position of a Monarch upon those foundations by egalitarian premises. It is the unique nature of the institution which makes those arguments irrelevant and unacceptable.
That is the background against which I conclude my remarks by saying a word or two about the allegations which have been made upon the basis of documents recently and quite improperly disclosed. The allegations are related to this aspect of the disclosure or non-disclosure of the Queen's fortune.
It was the intention of the last Conservative Government to introduce certain important changes in company law. In the White Paper foreshadowing those, we said that it was no part of our purpose to inhibit normal and honest transactions. The proposal in question was designed to curtail the practice of "warehousing" whereby some people acquired by stealth a dominant position in a company.
The proposal as finally refined was contained in Clause 19 of our Companies Bill, and it is worth noticing that the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not even like the proposal. It is also worth asserting that I should have been more than prepared to defend the clause as well as the exception about which some comment has been made.
Let me explain exactly what that exception was. In relation to that draft legislation, as to any other, the advisers of the Queen, as they do as a matter of routine, examined the Bill to see whether it contained, inadvertently or otherwise, any curtailment of the Royal Prerogative. There is nothing unusual, sinister or underhand about that. They drew the Government's attention to the possibility that the provision might impose an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on the Queen and her advisers, who were hardly likely to practise the mischief at which it was aimed.
Those who consider the country's wider financial and economic interests also suggested that the obligation could be similarly unecessary and vexatious for international organisations, foreign Governments and Heads of State whom we


would not wish to discourage from investing in this country. Hence, the proposal contained in our clause, as I explained in the letter which I wrote to the then Lord President, was designed to confer a similar reasonable protection on Heads of State in and outside this country, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Fulham will appreciate, in the country's present economic situation why that is necessary.
Those provisions were sensibly designed for the sake of the Monarch as our Head of State as well as for the economic interests of the country. Not one aspect of that can, or should be, regarded as a matter of regret, and not one aspect was in any way discreditable. It was entirely right.
There is only one thing to be regretted about the entire incident, and this also applies to some of the speeches in tonight's debate. It is that a small and unrepresentative minority has chosen yet again to use it as a means of launching a quite unjustifiable attack on the Monarchy and, indeed, upon certain members of the Royal Family.
I have no doubt that the great majority of our countrymen join with me in deploring what has been said by some hon. Members and, equally, I have no doubt that they join with me in deploring what sometimes seems to be an almost endless campaign to knock and chisel away at institutions that are the heart of this nation's history.
The danger to our institutions does not always come from violence and force. They can also be imperilled by indifference, malice and abuse, of which we have heard, unhappily, too much tonight. I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to join with me in rejecting the Prayer.

9.36 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I hope I can start by reducing the temperature and by welcoming the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in his new rôle. I look forward to a developing relationship with him. I hope he continues as he has begun and that the support he offers to Her Majesty's Government tonight will continue through the months ahead.
The Monarchy is the most ancient institution in the story of mankind. Its origins are shrouded in the mists of prehistory. It goes back to the dawn of religion. It is not surprising that the constitutional Monarchy, as we have come to know it in twentieth century Europe and, indeed, in north-west Europe, contains many elements of paradox. For example, there is an extraordinarily close relationship between constitutional Monarchy and social democratic Government. There are very few social democracies which do not have a constitutional Monarchy and there are no constitutional Monarchies which have not had Socialists in government.
Many anomalies of this nature are found in the institution. But anomaly or not, there is no question but that the majority of British people greatly prefer their Head of State to be an hereditary Monarch rather than an elected president. The welcome that the Queen receives in other countries, and which she is receiving in Mexico, shows that the British people are not alone in appreciating their Monarchy.
In dealing with an institution which is as unique and as anomalous as the constitutional Monarchy, there is no doubt that too loose an application of normal standards can damage the institution. In many countries it has destroyed the institutional Monarchy. On the other hand, too rigid an application could be self-defeating.
The history of a recent attempt to reform the House of Lords may have lessons here. It is not an easy matter to achieve a balance, and the right point of balance may shift as the years pass. The balance in the application of standards for the British Monarchy has shifted enormously in the last two centuries, and there is no evidence that it has suffered as a result.
Contrary to the views held by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I believe that this House has the duty as well as the right to debate these issues. This gives the country and the Monarchy a chance to form a judgment of the nation's changing mood. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and my right


hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) for the moderation and rationality with which they presented their case. I shall try to answer one by one the questions they raised.
First my hon. Friend complained about the timing and manner of presentation of this order. Unfortunately, the statute imposes a statutory obligation on the trustees. I was as surprised as the House, no doubt, to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the trustees, along with his other responsibility as Master of the Mint and some undisclosed responsibilities relating to the Manor of Northstead. However, I have imposed on me, and so has the First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister, a statutory duty to report to the House if further money is needed before the end of the year in which the existing money is likely to be insufficient. Therefore, we had no alternative but to lay this order before the House before 1st April. We chose to do so well before 1st April precisely to give the House a chance to discuss these proposals well in advance.
Next year we plan to change the procedure, as the Prime Minister told the House recently. We propose to move any future increase which is needed in provision for the Royal Household through the normal Supply Vote. The necessary legislation for this change in procedure will be laid before the House at the beginning of the next Session, and that will provide the opportunity for a longer and more wide-ranging discussion of the problem.
The Prime Minister indicated the Government's intention to seek parliamentary authority for future increases in the various provisions made under the Civil List Act to be provided by means of a grant in aid made to the Royal Trustees by the Treasury, which would be included in Estimates and voted as part of the normal Supply procedure. I think that from all points of view—including the point of view of the House and of the Monarchy—that is a better procedure than the present one.
The order, which we had no alternative but to produce in this form at this time, in no way provides for an increase in the Queen's pay. I agree with the

right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East and others who have spoken that the order provides for an increase in money to permit the Queen to increase the wages and salaries of existing members, officials and staff of the Royal Household. Three-quarters of the sum that the House is asked to approve is for wages and salaries of members of the Household and only one-quarter for other expenses which relate to official duties of the Monarchy. Thanks to economies in administration, these will have increased by only 32 per cent. by the end of a period in which the RPI may have increased by about 40 per cent.
As I said, wages and salaries account for three-quarters of the increase which the Prime Minister and I, and the Royal Trustees, are asking the House to approve. Most of the staff concerned are engaged in manual and clerical work.
At the end of 1974 there were 337 staff employed full-time in the Royal Household—10 per cent. fewer than in 1970. Only 7 per cent. receive salaries of £4,000 or more a year. That is now one and half times average earnings. The average salary or wage paid to the remaining 93 per cent. was about £1,600 a year, or £30 a week.
With respect to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), the somewhat bombastic fantasies with which he regaled the House, suggesting that the increases in the pay of higher civil servants were responsible for the increases in the pay of the Royal Household, were very far from the truth.
Of the 337 full-time members, only eight are linked to Civil Service grades for whom increases were recently recommended in the Boyle Report, 82 are linked to Civil Service grades, ranging from typist to Assistant Secretary, 19 are messengers and domestic staff linked to Civil Service or National Health Service grades, and 228 are domestic, garage, stable staff and gardeners without a firm link to Civil Service grades, but whose pay increases strictly follow the percentage rate of increase awarded to linked staff. In all these cases, the increases being granted to these members of the Royal Household staff are increases which have been negotiated, directly or indirectly, by trade unions and, following


up a question which has been asked, within the social contract.
To give an example to try to meet the point raised by one of my hon. Friends, the provision includes the wages of a score of housemaids whose annual salaries vary between £1,091 and £1,293—or between £21 or £25 a week—and who receive increases in line with those awarded to the lower grades of the Civil Service. I do not believe that any hon. Member would wish to deny these mainly very low-paid working men and women an increase in line with that which is being received, after negotiations within the limits set by the social contract, by their analogues in other parts of the Civil Service.
The whole of the money that we are now discussing is concerned exclusively with official functions and duties. Nevertheless, in the light of the economic situation the Queen has agreed to contribute £150,000 towards the additional £420,000 required, which means that the Exchequer and the taxpayer are being asked to contribute only £270,000—an increase of only 27 per cent. above the provision made three years ago. None of us can regard that as unreasonable in the circumstances.
A number of hon. Members have raised what I know to be an issue on which there is deep feeling—the question of the Sovereign's immunity from personal taxation. The constitutional position whereby the general Crown exemption from taxation extends to the Sovereign personally has always been recognised in setting the amount to be provided through the Civil List at the beginning of each reign. It was one of the many factors taken into consideration by both Select Committees which reported in 1952 and 1971.
The present occasion is not a fundamental review such as a Select Committee conducted as recently as 1971. The order and the proposed legislation are designed only to cone with the demands made by an unprecedented rate of inflation on the purely official element of the financial arrangements made with the Crown.
No one who has listened to this debate or who reads the report as the days pass will doubt that there is deep feeling among some hon. Members that there might be advantage in a change. But con-

sideration of the relationship and nature of the various elements in this arrangement would be appropriate only as part of a fundamental review of the scale and style of Royal functions and occasions similar to the reviews undertaken in 1952 and 1971. As I said, the opportunity for further discussion of this matter will arise when the proposed legislation is brought before the House later in the year. That will give us a chance for a longer and more wide-ranging discussion than we have had today.
Today, we are concerned with a proposal to increase expenditure on that part of the Queen's official duties which is represented by the Royal Household. Even with this increase, the Royal Household costs us a lot less than does the Science Museum, in London, and the total expenditure by the Exchequer or the taxpayer from all sources on the Monarchy is about the cost of one General Election.
I know that there are strong and genuine feelings about the aspects of financing the Monarchy which are not directly raised in the order, but the order makes provision for financing an essential part of the Monarchy as an official institution by enabling the Royal Household to pay those who serve it the trade union rate for the job. Of all those at present employed by the Royal Household, 93 per cent, are now receiving an average wage of £30 per week. I believe that even those who feel the doubts so well expressed by so many tonight must find it difficult to justify voting against a provision whose only purpose is to enable humbly-paid men and women to receive the trade union rate for a necessary job.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the very full and fair way in which he has replied to the debate. Before I turn to the substance of his arguments and express a view upon them, perhaps I might deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
My hon. Friend referred to the enormous volume of correspondence he has received on this subject. I, too, have received a fairly substantial volume of correspondence. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has observed about his what I have observed about mine, that


some of the more extreme letters expressing views in support of the Monarchy have been unsigned and have contained sentiments which I am quite sure would have brought a blush to Her Majesty's face despite the educational efforts of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
Tonight we have heard speeches from the Conservative Party which seem to put up not arguments directed against the views and the facts that have been adduced by myself and hon. Members on this side of the House but complete Aunt Sally's based on views they had committed to paper probably hours or days before they entered the Chamber to participate in this debate.

Mr. Aitken: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I would refer particularly to the views of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), who said that we had witnessed tonight the politics of envy. Far from being the politics of envy, they have been the politics of the twentieth century, a clear demonstration of open government, whether referring to the Government of Her Majesty exercised as the Sovereign or the Government exercised by my right hon. Friend with the support of a majority in this House. They have been the politics of democracy, a demand by speaker after speaker from this side of the House that the democratic process in this country in 1975 should mean that all citizens of the realm are equal under the law as far as taxation and duties are concerned. Far from being the politics of envy and an attempt to undermine the Monarchy in this country, they have been politics and the sentiments, shared by so many of our citizens, that in this day and age there should not only be open government and equality of taxation but that these are right and proper subjects for full debate in this House.
Having dealt with the irrelevant arguments of the Opposition, I turn to the substance of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I believe he has shown quite clearly that in respect of this order the extra money which is being provided is to go to pay the salaries of those people for whom I expressed concern in my opening remarks. But I do not believe that he has dealt with what has been the main theme of the arguments from this side of the House,

the question of taxation of the Royal income. I cannot accept that the restraint that is to come in the legislation that the Government are to bring forward will provide the opportunity to bring out into the gaze of this House the real facts in relation to income from private wealth resulting from the immunity of the Sovereign from taxation.
Therefore, as much as I would have liked, because of my great respect for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to advise my hon. Friends and, perhaps, some of my right hon. Friends not to oppose the order, I cannot do that. I believe that by voting tonight, however many or however few follow me into the Lobby in support of the Prayer, we are voting not to deny the workers and employees in the Royal household their justice, not as a blow against the Monarchy, but in support of the Monarchy, because we are trying to demonstrate the belief that is held on the Government side of the House that the strength of the constitutional relationship between the Queen, Parliament and the people of this country can best be preserved by the right of Parliament and the representatives of the people in a free Parliament to question the expenditure that goes from this House in moneys voted by this Parliament for the use of the Sovereign.
I believe that this vote tonight will strengthen those links and will demonstrate to the Government that sooner or later in this Parliament they will have to bring forward legislation—be it in a Finance Bill or in some other way—which will enshrine equality under the law of taxation for all the citizens of this realm.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: It would be appropriate for the House, before we vote tonight, to place on record the astonishing gulf between the Labour Party and the people, because if ever there was a gulf between the views expressed by some Labour Members and the innermost convictions of the British people, that gulf has been demonstrated in the debate this evening.
We from the Opposition benches would like to place on record that we are entitled, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir


G. Howe) said, to speak for the overwhelming majority of the British people in rejecting the Prayer.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: We are about to witness one of those strange occasions when the opposition within the Government is going to troop into the Lobbies to prevent the Government paying a decent sum of the money to the employees of the Crown, and will do so, according to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), on the ground that the they will be supporting the Monarchy as they follow him into the Lobby to deny the Monarchy the money which it needs to carry out its constitutional functions. There have been claims tonight that they are Her Majesty's loyal subjects. They are not. They are Her Majesty's most soiled objects who will be following the hon. Member for

Erith and Crayford into the Lobby tonight.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) has spoken tonight not merely for the Conservative Party but for millions of supporters of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the nationalist parties in the country at large. What is more, he has spoken for Her Majesty, for the Government, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. I trust that the House will reject the Prayer soundly and well.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil List (Increase of Financial Provision) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 133), dated 5th February 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be annulled:—

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 427.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Ashton, Joe
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rooker, J. W.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rose, Paul B.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Bean, R. E.
Kelley, Richard
Selby, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Kerr, Russell
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Bidwell, Sydney
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sillars, James


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Cartwright, John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemitson, Ivor
Lee, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cohen, Stanley
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Conlan, Bernard
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Watkinson, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Moonman, Eric
Weetch, Ken


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Flannery, Martin
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Pollok)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Forrester, John
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pardoe, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


George, Bruce
Park, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grocott, Bruce
Parry, Robert



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hatton, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. William Molloy.


Huckfield, Les






NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Bishop, E. S.


Alison, Michael
Bates, Alf
Blaker, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beith, A. J.
Booth, Albert


Archer, Peter
Bell, Ronald
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ashley, Jack
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Awdry, Daniel
Benyon, W.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Berry, Hon Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Baker, Kenneth
Biffen, John
Bradford, Rev Robert




Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jessel, Toby


Braine, Sir Bernard
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Brittan, Leon
Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Brotherton, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Farr, John
Jones Arthur (Daventry)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fell, Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael


Buchanan, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Buck, Antony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaufman, Gerald


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Burden, F. A.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kershaw, Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fox, Marcus
Kilfedder, James


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kimball, Marcus


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fraser John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Campbell, Ian
Freeson, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Mark
Freud, Clement
Kirk, Peter


Carmichael, Neil
Fry, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Carson, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lamborn, Harry


Carter, Ray
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lamont, Norman


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lane, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gilbert, Dr John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Churchill, W. S.
Ginsburg, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lawson, Nigel


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Golding, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhart, Philip
Le Marchant, Spencer


Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cockcroft, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Gorst, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lipton, Marcus


Cope, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Litterick, Tom


Cordle, John H.
Graham, Ted
Lloyd, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Luard, Evan


Corrie, John
Gray, Hamish
Luce, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Grieve, Percy
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Griffiths, Eldon
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Crawford, Douglas
Grist, Ian
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Crawshaw, Richard
Grylls, Michael
MacCormick, Iain


Critchley, Julian
Hall, Sir John
McCrindle, Robert


Cronin, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McCusker, H.


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McElhone, Frank


Crouch, David
Hamling, William
Macfarlane, Neil


Crowder, F. P.
Hampson, Dr Keith
MacGregor, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hannam, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cunningham, Dr J. (Witeh)
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Dalyell, Tam
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Havers, Sir Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Deakins, Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Magee, Bryan


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mahon, Simon


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marks, Kenneth


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Henderson, Douglas
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Delargy, Hugh
Heseltine, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hicks, Robert
Marten, Neil


Dempsey, James
Higgins, Terence L.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Holland, Philip
Mates, Michael


Doig, Peter
Hooley, Frank
Mather, Carol


Dormand, J. D.
Hordern, Peter
Maude, Angus


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jame
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, David (Guildford)
Mawby, Ray


Drayson, Burnaby
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mayhew, Patrick


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael


Dunlop, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mendelson, John


Dunnett, Jack
Hunt, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Hurd, Douglas
Millan, Bruce


Dykes, Hugh
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Eadie, Alex
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Edelman, Maurice
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mills, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
James, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Janner, Greville
Moate, Roger


Elliott, Sir William
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Molyneaux, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Monro, Hector


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Montgomery, Fergus


Emery, Peter

Moore, John (Croydon C)







More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Ridsdale, Julian
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tapsell, Peter


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Mudd, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tebbit, Norman


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Roper, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Neave, Airey
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Nelson, Anthony
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Thompson, George


Neubert, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tinn, James


Newton, Tony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tomlinson, John


Normanton, Tom
Sainsbury, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D.


Nott, John
St. John Stevas, Norman
Trotter, Neville


Oakes, Gordon
Sandelson, Neville
Tugendhat, Christopher


Ogden, Eric
Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


O'Halloran, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Onslow, Cranley
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Viggers, Peter


Osborn, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wakeham, John


Owen, Dr David
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shepherd, Colin
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shersby, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Parker, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Parkinson, Cecil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wall, Patrick


Pattie, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred
Warren, Kenneth


Pavitt, Laurie
Sims, Roger
Watt, Hamish


Pendry, Tom
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Small, William
Welsh, Andrew


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Whitlock, William


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, William (Rugby)
Speed, Keith
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spence, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Radice, Giles
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Rathbone, Tim
Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stainton, Keith
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodall, Alec


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanley, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Reid, George
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. James Hamilton


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. David Stoddart.



Stokes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords amendments considered

Clause 1

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH OFFSHORE PETROLEUM

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out from "for" to "the" in line 11 and insert;
purposes relating to exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum in

10.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to restrict the purposes for which land may be acquired under the Bill to those specified in subsection (2) that is, platform sites, pipelines, terminals and infrastructure. It would similarly restrict the application of other provisions of the Bill relating to the carrying out of works, the making of loans or guarantees, and reinstatement.
Such a definition of purposes would be too limiting. The purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) are, in aggregate, narrower than the overall purpose set out in subsection (1) and do not detract from its generality. They are separately listed in this way simply to identify them as the purposes for which expedited acquisition orders may be made, if the acquisition is a matter of urgency.
There may well be occasions in the future when the Government would wish to facilitate oil operations by acquiring land and making it available for other purposes relating to the exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum but to which no particular degree of urgency of acquisition attaches. Such purposes might include, for example, service bases, pipe-coating yards, general warehousing and storage facilities, testing or research facilities for underwater operations, or a repair yard for semi-submersible drilling

rigs. All of these fall within the scope of subsection (1) as in the Commons print of the Bill, but none of them would be included in the formula proposed by the amendment.
It is worth emphasising that the amendment would prevent the acquisition of land by the Secretary of State for these purposes even with the agreement of the owner. The effect of the amendment, therefore, is to make the Bill a less versatile tool for the Government's task in helping to ensure development of, and securing lasting benefit from, our offshore oil. This is not a drafting point; it is a matter of substance.
Subsection (2) is concerned with developments where land may be needed as a matter of urgency. It represents the Government's well-considered and strictly limited list of such developments. We have no wish to add to it, nor need we do so, since subsection (1) permits the Secretary of State to acquire land for the other purposes I have mentioned, either by agreement or under normal compulsory purchase procedures.
I have tried to give concrete examples of what will be cut out if the amendment is made. As we have said on previous occasions—the matter has been debated at length in the House—we must also bear in mind that we are operating in a field of rapidly changing technology, and in five years' time there could be needs relating to the exploration for or exploitation of oil that we cannot possibly be expected to identify in detail at present. The Government therefore remain convinced, despite the consideration given to the matter in another place, that it is necessary to have the general power of land acquisition in subsection (1) to give a degree of flexibility to meet land requirements arising from future offshore technology.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: As the Minister said, we debated the matter at length in our previous consideration of the Bill. He said nothing tonight to justify the Government's having their powers so broadly drawn. I do not intend to rehearse the earlier arguments, but I believe that the Bill has largely been overtaken by events. It is questionable whether there will be orders to fill the berths at some sites. Therefore, to extend


the Bill is to be out of touch with the present situation in the oil industry.
The hon. Gentleman asks that we keep the additional powers in the Bill because they may be needed in the future. That may be the case, and I can understand the Government seeking for their own convenience to have flexibility in the future. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the powers that he is taking are wide and compulsory and of a fairly drastic nature. The proper thing is not for the Government to seek blanket powers now but to return to the House

and seek whatever powers are needed in future.

For those reasons, plus the fact that the Government have not said anything tonight to justify why they have to have these additional powers, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Lords in their amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 142.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[10.21 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Fraser John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Archer, Peter
George, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Ashley, Jack
Gould, Bryan
Newens, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice


Bean, R. E.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamling, William
Park, George


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Parker, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Parry, Robert


Boardman, H.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Albert
Hatton, Frank
Phipps, Dr Colin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Buchanan, Richard
Janner, Greville
Richardson, Miss Jo


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Cartwright, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roper, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Selby, Harry


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Corbett, Robin
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Lee, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cryer, Bob
Litterick, Tom
Snape, Peter


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dunn, James A.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Wellbeloved, James


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Eadie, Alex
Madden, Max
White, James (Pollok)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Magee, Bryan
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton E)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Bruce



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Mr Laurie Pavitt and


Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Henderson Douglas
Penhaligon, David


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Howe Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim


Benyon, W.
Hurd, Douglas
Reid, George


Biffen, John
James, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Blaker, Peter
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bradford, Rev Robert
Jones Arthur (Daventry)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Budgen, Nick
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Latham, Michael (Melton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cope, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Corrie, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Crawford, Douglas
Luce, Richard
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Crowder, F. P.
MacCormick, Iain
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McCusker, H.
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Drayson, Burnaby
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fowler Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Freud, Clement
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, George


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gower Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey
Watt, Hamish


Grieve, Percy
Nelson, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Grimond, Rt Hon J
Neubert, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony
Wigley, Dafydd


Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Paisley, Rev Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hawkins, Paul
Pardoe, John
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Hayhoe Barney
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Fred Silvester.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (7) and insert;
(7) Any such statutory instrument on the expiry of 28 days from the laying of the draft thereof in a House of Parliament shall, whether or not it has been referred to a Committee of that House as aftermentioned, proceed in that House as if its provisions would, apart from this Act, require to be enacted by a public Bill which cannot be referred to a Committee under Standing Orders of that House relating to private Bills.

10.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
As the House knows, there are procedures under the Standing Orders in another place for dealing with hybrid

orders which can involve the hearing of petitioners by a Select Committee. In Committee when we moved the provision to make orders for expedited acquisition subject to the affirmative procedure, we disapplied the Lords hybridity procedure because we were apprehensive that in certain circumstances that procedure might involve unacceptable delay.
The matter was argued at considerable length in the other place and strong feelings were expressed that it would be wrong to disapply completely the Lords hydribity procedures because there was a considerable attachment to them as protecting the rights of individuals. What eventually has resulted is a compromise which contains the normal hybridity procedure except that orders will be treated as hybrid for a period of 28 days from: the date on which they are laid.
In the normal course of events it takes a number of days for an affirmative resolution to come before the House or before the other place simply because of the difficulty of finding parliamentary time. But a hybridity procedure involving a period of 28 days from the date of the laying of the order will involve little extra delay. The Government are, therefore, willing to accept the amendment, which I hope will commend itself to the House—not least to the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who moved the original amendment in Committee, and who, I know, feels strongly about this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 34, at end insert;
( ) An expedited acquisition order shall not be made in respect of any land or part thereof which has been declared to be inalienable by virtue of any enactment.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we shall discuss Lords Amendment No. 14, in page 10, line 41, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Millan: This amendment deals with the question of inalienable land which was discussed in Committee.
The effect of the amendment which was accepted in the other place would be expressly to prevent the Secretary of State from making an expedited acquisition order in respect of any inalienable land. "Land" for the purposes of the present Bill means land owned by the National Trust for Scotland and land which the Trust's Council, by virtue of its own legislation, has declared to be inalienable.
Since the substance of the amendments was debated in Committee, I hall not deal with the matter in detail. I made clear on an earlier occasion that there was no intention to take over inalienable land of the National Trust in the foreseeable future. I said that none of that land at present appeared to be a candidate for an oil-related development but that it could not be excluded completely. We thought that in principle it was wrong to exclude inalienable land of the

National Trust. What we are providing for in the Bill is another parliamentary procedure—the affirmative resolution procedure—in substitution for the special parliamentary procedure which applies at present.
However, the view in the other place was that, even so, there should be a special exception for inalienable land. The Government do not accept that. We do not believe that the provisions of the Bill strike basically at the concept of the inalienability of National Trust land. The amendment just accepted introduces a further procedure in the other place. There will therefore be a further protection, in the case of inalienable land, in that the hybridity procedure in the other place will apply. Therefore, with the affirmative procedure and the amended hybridity procedure in the other place, we are very near the present position regarding inalienable land. The only difference is that there is a time limit on the procedure which does not apply to inalienable land. However, in principle and in terms of the practicality of the situation, we are virtually back to the present position.
It was made clear in Committee, and during the other stages of the Bill, that the land must have gone through the normal planning procedures. Taking account of the safeguards of the affirmative procedure, and of the amended but still substantial hybridity procedure in the other place, we see no reason to change our basic view about inalienability in relation to the Bill. I therefore ask the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Nothing that I have said is in any way to be taken as indicating that the Government do not attach great importance to the work of the National Trust. As an indication of the importance which we attach to this, we have arranged liaison on the matter with the National Trust, which should avoid any practical difficulty in the future.

Mr. J. Grimond: I appreciate that the amendment to which we have just agreed gives an extra safeguard. We are grateful to the Government for that. That amendment was moved in the other place on behalf of some of the conservation societies. However, I am not wholly reassured by


the Minister's statement that he foresees no likelihood of taking over National Trust land. This misses the point. It does not meet the danger which some hon. Members foresee in this provision of the Bill.
The history of the Bill is strange. The Bill was gestated for a long time in the Scottish Office and was not even mentioned as a possibility in the House until 18 months or two years after oil was known to be abundant in the North Sea. The Bill did not reach this House until the autumn of 1974. We were then told that it was so urgent that all the remaining stages must be taken in one day. However, that idea was dropped, and the Bill has taken its normal course. When it was brought out it seemed to me that the Bill was misdirected and too late. I hold that view even more strongly now, having watched its course through both Houses. I fail to see how the Government can say that the emergency is so dire that the special provisions written into existing National Trust legislation must be repealed.
The danger is not, as the Minister says, that the Bill will necessarily be used to take over National Trust land. Indeed I think that it will be of little use for the purposes at which it was directed originally. The danger is that it will give the idea that what was thought to be an almost certainty—that land handed over as inalienable would remain inalienable—is no longer the case. It will sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of people who may be contemplating giving their houses or property to the National Trust that, although there is no dire, immediate crisis and immediate use for it, the Government could take powers to acquire the land, side-tracking the very strict safeguards which existed previously.
As a previous Secretary of the National Trust for Scotland, I say in all sincerity that it may be that land and property of various kinds which otherwise would have been available to the nation may now not be given to the National Trust. I should regret that. The National Trusts are an effective way of preserving land and houses for the benefit of the public at large.
It was my hope that the Government would agree with the Lords in this respect and take a wider view of the possi-

bilities which may flow from this Bill, especially in view of the fact that I do not believe that the Bill will fulfil the functions for which it was meant. I fear that, like much legislation, it may be used for different purposes. That has happened before, and I fear that it may happen again.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: The present situation is quite different from that of the white heat in which these proposals were conceived originally, and there is little likelihood of any encroachment on National Trust land at present. But we are here talking about the encroachment upon the principle of the inalienability of land, and I am certain that the rejection of this Lords amendment will sow the seeds of doubt in people's mind and possibly lead in the future to an encroachment on such inalienable land.
I have had the opportunity of speaking in this House before about the offshore petroleum Bill and of pointing out what was happening in places like Argyll where the Government were convinced that we had to have sites as soon as possible, and where sites are now available with no orders forthcoming for the companies operating them.
This has led to a remarkable state of affairs if what we read in the Scotsman is to be believed. We are told that a technical study was commissioned by the Offshore Supplies Office designed to find out what else these sites could be used for if no orders were forthcoming. I was even more amazed to read that if no order comes to Portavadie the Government have one consolation in that the technical study uncovered the fact that the site was suited to the construction of large oil tankers in the dry dock. I should have thought that a shipyard was the best place to build oil tankers, especially when firms like Scott Lithgow are not building them because there is no demand.
This will lead to future encroachments on inalienable land. In order to protect their investment, even though there is no need for the site in question to be available for building platforms, the Government may say that they have to save their money and that, although the land is inalienable, they will have to build large tankers there.
I am convinced that it will be singularly dangerous and, more important, singularly unnecessary for us to reject the amendment. I am sure that hon. Members will see fit to accept it.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I spoke on this subject on the last occasion. My reason for speaking now is partly to say that I am pleased to see that, when certain of the interests of Scotland are involved, the Scottish National Party has decided to attend—unlike last night, when Scottish National Members were conspicuous by their absence, when we discussed important industrial policy. I welcome them here tonight.
I have spoken in favour of the amendment. It is true, as the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) said, that the situation has changed. I hope that the Government have recognised this. It is difficult to envisage a situation now in which National Trust land will be required for the purposes set out in the Bill. None of us can take a "Medes and Persians" line in future. National Trust land is unlikely to be needed for oil-related development, particularly on the northern part of the West Coast and it would be wrong to go ahead with this proposition.
I accept the Government's view that the power sought is unlikely to be used. It is clear that certain people who have devoted a lifetime's work to the National Trust, and often quantities of land, are anxious. Those of us who care about Scotland feel that we cannot be devoured completely by the oil monsters with which Tory Members are so keen to despoil our countryside. I hope that the Government will ensure that certain Scottish values are cherished and will set at rest the fears of conservationists and many others in Scotland.
If the Government took such a step it would be an encouragement to those people in Scotland who struggle against heavy odds to prevent our countryside being despoiled. Such a move would not affect the Government's aims.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I have already expressed my great concern about the situation concerning

inalienable land. I am distressed by the Minister's emphasis, by way of assurance, that this provision will not be needed. This is probably true. At the time when this provision was inserted into the Bill there may have been a different situation. The Minister has told us that we need not worry because he does actually want this provision—

Mr. Millan: I did not say that.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The Minister redoubles my fears. If he wants this provision I hope that he will say plainly that the Government intend to use it. Whether or not he intended it, the impression given by the Minister was that it was not the Government's intention to use it at present—that the Government saw no need for such a provision. If that is so it seems extraordinary to ask the House to put it into the Bill. If we are to break the principle of inalienable land we must do so on a more realistic occasion. I hope that we never do so because it is one of the principles which has led to the acquisition, through the National Trust, of a variety of lands of national importance. I think that less will be offered in future if we break this principle tonight.
I add my voice to the plea that has already been made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that even at this late stage the Government should change their mind on what appears to be a far less urgent matter than they represented at an earlier stage. If the Government persist in their attitude, the consequences for Scotland and for the benefits which can be bestowed through such organisations as the National Trust will be most unfortunate.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I share the anxiety that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) and others who have spoken. As a member of the executive of the National Trust for Scotland, I understand the reasons for that anxiety.
The major reality has been met by the concession in the previous Lords amendment. I welcome the fact that there will now be an opportunity for the National Trust for Scotland to petition the Lords


and have its case considered by a Select Committee. Therefore, there is nothing between us on the land. However, there is the psychological effect. If there is so little, in fact almost nothing, between us on the ground, why cannot we make the concession so that the anxiety that might deter donors making land available to the National Trust for Scotland or, indeed, the National Trust for England can be avoided? There is still anxiety which even the useful concession that has already been made does not wholly meet.
The position of the National Trust is now threatened. Therefore, even now, I appeal to the Government, as they would lose little or nothing by conceding this point, to agree to the Lords amendment.
I welcome the assurance that I have had from the Minister that there will be further discussions with the National Trust for Scotland and that the Government will seek to reach an understanding about the treatment of inalienable land. I should make it clear that I give a strong welcome to the action that the Government have already taken over Drumbuie where they have preserved a position that was under threat.
The Conservative Government introduced a measure in this regard which would have been far more damaging to the National Trust for Scotland. Therefore, because the record of this Government is so much better than that of the previous Government, and because I entirely trust the intentions and good will of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I expect them to recognise that in the course of, I hope, a very long history there may be others in their office whom we cannot trust to the same extent who may, alas, use this power to act in ways which I am sure they would never dream of acting. That is why I appeal to them to think of the possibility of this unhappy change, and even at this late moment to accept the amendment and preserve the position of the National Trust.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Since Committee we have moved from one bad principle to another. In Committee, the principle was that inalienable land would require compulsorily to be alienated. It was regrettable, but it was necessary. Tonight, the Minister has put forward a

different proposition—that there is no expectation that it will ever be necessary to alienate inalienable land, and that even if the Government were going to alienate inalienable land they would have the decency to discuss it with those whose inalienable land they intended to alienate. That is a quite different position from that stated in Committee, and a worse principle.
The Minister is saying, "Although we do not foresee a requirement for this statutory power, lest we ever should require it we shall take it." That is like saying, "We do not foresee the possibility that we shall have to execute you, but in case we ever want to, we shall take that power." That is a bad basis for legislation, particularly legislation which contravenes such a principle of inalienability. It is even worse when one intends to discuss with the prospective deceased how he shall be executed.
If the Minister does not think the power will be necessary, it would be reasonable and sensible to accept the amendment. The Minister is a noble and decent man—"noble" with a small "n"—but he may be succeeded by people with infinitely worse motives. No doubt he thinks that he might be succeeded by Members of the Conservative Party, or even, if he has nightmares, by Members of the Scottish National Party.
It is wrong to take powers which the Minister does not think he will need and which contravene a major principle. I invite him in all conscience to accept the amendment.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I compliment my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) on his tongue twisters and the way he got his tongue round them at this hour.
I have considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) about land which may be acquired for land development and in future returned to another use. The hon. Member is right to worry about this because he knows the position of Portavadie, where there has been talk of an alternative use being surveyed and considered for berths at the site. On practical grounds, I share his concern.
My main concern is on two points. The Minister has said that he sees no necessity immediately or in the foreseeable future for the use of these powers in relation to inalienable land. That was the main point of the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). If that is the case, and there is no urgency, we have the rest of the Bill and I would ask the Minister to consider again whether it is necessary to take these powers in relation to inalienable land. We are prepared to grant the Government the substantial powers necessary for expediting the development of offshore sites, but where there is no urgency—and the Minister has said there is not in relation to inalienable land—I ask the hon. Gentleman again to consider whether these powers are necessary.
In this amendment it is the National Trust we are concerned about and I ask the Minister to remember that in the debate in another place this amendment was not supported just by my party; the support went across the parties. Those involved feel that the Lords should be supported in this and that inalienable land should not be treated as the Government propose.
If he is not prepared to reconsider this because there is no urgency, the Minister should remember that it will still be possible to take inalienable land. Where there is no urgency it is better to leave the situation where it is and if the Minister is not prepared to reconsider, I ask my hon. Friends to support the Lords in their amendment and to oppose the Government in their attempt to reject it.

Mr. Millan: Since reference has been made to Portavadie by two hon. Members, I want to say something about it although it is strictly nothing to do with inalienable land. Reports in the Press this week that studies have been carried out by the Department of Energy into alternative uses of Portavadie are completely without foundation.

An Hon. Member: In the Scotsman.

Mr. Millan: I do not know where it was. It is not true. I hope we shall have no more of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) made the point

that this Government's record is good on the question of the National Trust land involved in the Drumbuie inquiry.
I hope that that fact will be kept in mind by both sides of the House, because the fact that the Drumbuie land was owned by the National Trust and was inalienable land was a factor that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State weighed heavily, and it had an important influence on the decision he took on the Drumbuie inquiry.
The main point to which I wish to draw attention is that raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). There is an implication in what some hon. Members have said that once land has been declared inalienable by the National Trust, nothing can ever happen to it—that it can never be changed in any way. That is not so. First, having declared it inalienable, the National Trust can reverse the procedures, and, in fact, has done so. Some of the land in the Balmacara area around Drumbuie has been sold, as I recollect, by the National Trust.
The first point I make is that it is a matter for the National Trust procedures. Secondly, it is possible at the moment compulsorily to acquire National Trust inalienable land. That has to be said. It is nevertheless accepted that it is possible for compulsory acquisition to take place of inalienable National Trust land, for the very good basic principle that it ought not to be possible for any individual or group of persons, however distinguished and however good their record has been, to set themselves aside from the general law of the land in an important matter of this sort. It would be wrong that there could be an absolute inalienability. That is not recognised in the present law.
The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 provides procedures for the compulsory acquisition of National Trust or any other inalienable land. It is true that these procedures involve something other than the normal public local inquiry which applies for compulsory purchase generally. There has to be an inquiry before Parliamentary Commissioners, and the inquiry then reports to Parliament and the final decision is taken by Parliament.
There is a procedure where the final decision is taken by Parliament. That is exactly the end result of this Bill. It is reached by a rather different route and it is reached rather more expeditiously, but the end result is a parliamentary procedure where the decision is ultimately taken by this House and the other place, and, because of Amendment No. 2, with all the protections of the hybridity procedure, as amended, that I have described tonight. We are dealing with a comparatively narrow point here.
It has been asked: if the point is so narrow, why are the Government persisting in dealing with this matter in this way? First, there is a point of principle involved, which I have indicated and which I shall not elaborate. Secondly, we are dealing here essentially with a situation which, if it arose, would be, by definition, a situation of urgency. The whole procedure could not arise under the Bill unless there were a situation of urgency, because the procedure does not bite unless urgency is involved.
I did not say on Second Reading or in Committee, or tonight, that National Trust land would never be required. All I said was that I see no particular piece of National Trust land which is likely, in the foreseeable future, to be required for oil-related development, as I see the situation today. But I cannot and will not guarantee that the situation will not arise when a piece of National Trust land will be required in a situation of urgency. I hope it does not arise, but if it does arise and the urgency is there, it seems to me perfectly consonant not only with the general principles of the Bill but also with the way in which we have treated National Trust land in the past that there should be an expedited acquisition procedure after the full planning procedures have been gone through and in a way which

allows ultimately for parliamentary approval, with the necessary hybridity procedure applying if necessary in the other place according to the rules of the other place in these matters. I have no doubt that in the actuality, if the situation ever arose, this would be the kind of case in which the other place would want to operate the hybridity procedure. That is not, however, a matter on which I can commit the other place at all. That is my estimate of the situation.

Having given that explanation, it seems to be quite wrong to say, even by implication, that this is a case of the Government's setting oil-related development before questions of amenity, environment, and so on. That is certainly not the situation. If that impression were to get about, and if unnecessary fears—as I think them to be—were raised in the minds of potential donors, I suppose that some damage could conceivably arise to the National Trust. But I do not believe that there is any real ground for apprehension. I hope that those who have the interests of the National Trust at heart—I hope I may include myself among them—will not give an exaggerated impression of what the Bill is doing in a way which would cause unnecessary damage, because that would be doing a disservice to the National Trust.

However, for the basic reasons of the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a situation arising in which the urgency which is part of the basis of the Bill might apply, I cannot do other than continue to recommend the House to disagree with the Lords in the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 121.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[11.12 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Dempsey, James


Archer, Peter
Cartwright, John
Doig, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Clemitson, Ivor
Dormand, J. D.


Ashley, Jack
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadie, Alex


Bates, Alf
Corbett, Robin
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bean, R. E.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Boardman, H.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, John (Newton)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cryer, Bob
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Witeh)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam
Flannery, Martin


Buchanan, Richard
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ford, Ben




Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh
Roderick, Caerwyn


Fraser John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McElhone, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roper, John


Golding, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rose, Paul B.


Gould, Bryan
Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Selby, Harry


Grocott, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hardy, Peter
McNamara, Kevin
Sillars, James


Harper, Joseph
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth
Small, William


Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)




Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David


Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Strang, Gavin


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Kerr, Russell
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kinnock, Neil
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Pollok)


Lambie, David
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. James Hamilton and


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt




NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John
Penhaligon, David


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Beith, A. J.
James, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Benyon, W.
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Reid, George


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones Arthur (Daventry)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bradford, Rev Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Kilfedder, James
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bulmer, Esmond
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carson, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawson, Nigel
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin


Corrie, John
MacCormick, Iain
Sims, Roger


Crawford, Douglas
McCusker, H.
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, Burnaby
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, George


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Neave, Airey
Watt, Hamish


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Osborn, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Hawkins, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayhoe Barney
Pardoe, John
Mr. Richard Luce and


Henderson Douglas
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Fred Silvester.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pattie, Geoffrey

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 2

EXTINCTION OF RIGHTS AFFECTING LAND

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 9, leave out "may" and insert "shall".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is basically a drafting amendment, but it perhaps adds a little strength.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

REGULATIONS FOR PROTECTION AND CONTROL OF OPERATIONS IN DESIGNATED SEA AREAS

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 7, line 2, after "persons" insert
and the movement of any vehicles or vessels".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendment No. 7.

Mr. Millan: I also recommend that the House accept Lords Amendment No. 7.
The amendments are inter-related. The purpose of Amendment No. 6, which is a drafting amendment, is to amplify the description of matters with respect to which the Secretary of State may, under subsection (1), make regulations for designated sea areas. Its effect is to make it clear that the regulations may include regulations for the purpose of regulating the movement of vessels in designated sea areas, which I think is accepted as being essential.
The purpose of Amendment No. 7 is to amplify and make more explicit the powers of enforcement in designated sea areas so that the regulations can be made to work.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to

Clause 8

REINSTATEMENT OF LAND HELD UNDER ACT

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 11, at end insert "and such other bodies."

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we shall discuss Lords Amendment No. 9.

Mr. Millan: This is partly a redrafting of the wording of Clause 8, but it strengthens the wording by providing for consultation with other bodies, which will include the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, in carrying out reinstatement where that is decided and on the general question of making a decision about a particular piece of land and whether or not there should be reinstatement.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE REINSTATEMENT OF OTHER LAND DEVELOPED FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH OFFSHORE PETROLEUM

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 8, line 30, leave out "under section 27(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

Mr. Millan: This is an improvement to the wording of Clause 9 to meet points raised in the House on Report. It was felt that there was a danger that the reference to Section 27(1)(b) of the 1972 Act—the reference to the planning permission being related to the end of a specified period—might be too restrictive. Both the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and


my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) suggested that we should redraft the clause. We have done so by omitting particular words and adding further words at the end which correspondingly strengthen the clause. I believe that we can now assure local authorities that there will be no difficulty in operating the clause even if they are not able to put a specific date to the end of an oil-related development.
This is a substantial amendment, but I would not admit that, technically speaking, the clause as originally drafted was wrong. I accept that the amendment definitely makes it more explicit.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 12

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ACQUISITION AND APPROPRIATION OF LAND

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 10, line 21, at beginning insert:
() The power of the Secretary of State to acquire land compulsorily under this Act shall

"(a) the powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners;



(b) the powers of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses;



(c) the Pilotage Act 1913;
1913 c. 31 (2 &amp; 3 Geo. 5).


(d) Part II of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (safety of navigation):
1949 c. 74.


(e) the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958;
1958 c. 30.


(f) the Pipe-lines Act 1962;
1962 c. 58.


(g) the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971;
1971 c. 61.


(h) the Dumping at Sea Act 1974;
1974 c. 20.


(i) the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974;
1974 c. 37.


but this section shall not enable any person to execute any relevant operations requiring a licence under section 4 of this Act without obtaining such a licence."

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold. Its first purpose is to clarify the position of the Crown Estate Commissioners under the Bill. The Crown's interests in land are dealt with in Clause 16(5). The intention has always been that such interests would not be prejudiced by anything in the Bill. That is made explicit by the amendment. Secondly, this is a drafting amendment whose pur-

include power to acquire a servitude or other right over land by the creation of a new right.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment creates a means whereby the Secretary of State can exercise his power of compulsory purchase, for the purposes of the Bill, so as to create a servitude or other right in or over land, without his having to acquire the land itself in which the right subsists. A power of this kind may well be useful—it could be more acceptable to the landowner—in enabling the Secretary of State to provide a new right of way, under Clause 2(6), in replacement for a right of way extinguished by an order under Clause 2(5).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 18

SAVINGS

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 13, leave out lines 19 to 24 and insert:

pose is to extend the list of enactments in relation to which a specific saving from the provisions of the Bill is provided.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20

SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT

Lords Amendment: No. 16: in page 14, line 10, leave out "sea bed" and insert "foreshore".

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords Amendment No. 17.

Mr. Millan: Lords Amendments No. 16 and 17 are interrelated and are essentially drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

11.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. William Ross, Mr. Bruce Millan, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Buchanan-Smith and Mr. Hamish Gray; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; and that it withdraw immediately.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should there not be a member of the Scottish National Party on that Committee? Even if it is a formality, the Committee includes members of the Opposition, and I ask that consideration be given to including a member of the Scottish National Party formally on the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to the hon. Member, this is the normal composition of the Committee, but it is open to debate if the hon. Member so wishes.

Mr. Wilson: The House must recognise that since the General Election a year ago, and the October General Election, there has been a change in its composition in relation to Scotland. In formal matters recognition should be given to the factual representation. That is what I ask. If Ministers are prepared to consider this matter in future I shall withdraw my objection to the motion.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that there is any doubt that we shall consider this matter in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Nearly 5 million people in this country depend in whole or in part on supplementary benefit. Under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 each claimant is provided with a right of appeal against virtually every decision which concerns his entitlement to benefit. That means that the tribunals which administer those appeals affect many millions of people more directly and more frequently than do courts of law. Those tribunals deal with between 30,000 and 40,000 cases each year, and it is perhaps surprising that until recently the tribunals have attracted very little public attention. Attention has been directed mainly to the position of the claimant and the question whether he should be represented.
A couple of months ago the Child Poverty Action Group produced a report which focused attention not on the claimant but on the tribunal and its rôle, composition and structure. It is my intention tonight to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to that report, but in doing so I may—if permitted—draw upon my own experience over a period of four or five years as a representative of claimants at such tribunals.
The supplementary benefits handbook assures claimants that they have the right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. That statement raises and begs the first and perhaps most important question about the operation of these tribunals. Of course it is intended that they should be independent, but I believe that one has less confidence that that is so when one looks into the question further. Take the fact that the composition of the tribunals is virtually in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security, the office facilities provided for the tribunals are those of the Department; very often the rooms in which


the appeals are heard are those of the Department; the commission which administers the supplementary benefits scheme has the power to review the decisions of the tribunals, which is like a party in a court case having the power to overrule the court's decision if he does not like it.
But the most important inroad into the tribunals' independence is the rôle of the clerk. The clerk is an employee of the commission. He is seconded from the regional offices of the commission. His training is with the commission. His future career prospects are with the commission. He is therefore in a quite different position from that of the clerk to a magistrates' court. The clerk to a tribunal is identified by many people as associated with one of the parties to the appeal.
The clerk's rôle varies considerably from tribunal to tribunal, but at the least he is there to offer guidance and advice on legal and technical matters. Often he will volunteer that advice himself. He has a rôle to play in keeping the record of proceedings. He often draws up the reasons for a decision. Many people think that he drafts the decision itself. In any case, in every tribunal he is the man who withdraws with the tribunal when it deliberates on what decision it should reach.
Taking into account all these factors it is not surprising that to many claimants Lord Hewart's famous dictum that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done does not seem to apply.
The rôle of the clerk varies from tribunal to tribunal, that is true, but in many cases his rôle is increased in importance by the second major defect in these tribunals, which is that they are lacking in the expertise, authority and knowledge which would enable them to adjudicate properly in these matters. There is no requirement that the chairman or any other member should be legally qualified, despite the recommendation to the contrary by the Franks Committee. No proper training is provided for members of the tribunal, so in many respects they are unable to deal with the matters that are placed before them. It may be said that that does not matter, but it does, because, like every other scheme provided by statute, there are legal rules.

They require interpretation and they give rise to legal problems.
But there is an even more important problem in relation to supplementary benefits, namely, that within the legal framework provided by the statute there are vast areas of discretion—given by statute initially to the commission and secondly to the tribunals. The commission's reaction to that area of discretion is to deal with the question by drawing up detailed rules of practice and policy, which are the rules which guide, in many respects the actions and decisions of the commission's officials. In this respect these rules are not legally binding—they are rules of practice only—but the tribunals, because they lack the necessary expertise, are often unable to distinguish between the requirements of the rules of law, on the one hand, which are binding, and the requirements of the commission's policy, on the other, which are not.
When faced with questions of major importance to individual claimants—questions such as, what is a reasonable rent? who is a householder? for what purposes may an exceptional needs grant be made?—many tribunals are simply unable to exercise the discretion they have because they are unaware that they have it.
In that situation they are forced to turn back and to rely upon the advice given to them initially by the clerk but more frequently by the presenting officer. That officer is a full-time expert professional man who presents the case on behalf of the commission. This means that the tribunal in many cases will opt out of these difficult and complex questions. In many cases it takes refuge in the commonsense attitude of the man in the street and its members say, "We will accept what we are told about law and policy and will make no distinction on these matters. Our rôle is to inquire into the circumstances of the applicant. That approach often leads the tribunal into irrelevant, embarrassing and sometimes offensive inquiries into the personal circumstances of an applicant—and often into quite unsafe, moral and value judgments. In truth, the tribunal judges the merits of the applicant rather than of the applicant's case.
I believe that the adversary system operated by these tribunals works well only if there is some equality between


parties appearing before it. That is manifestly not the case in many instances with which tribunals have to deal. On the one hand, there is a professional full-time presenting officer, and on the other hand an often bewildered applicant. In these circumstances it is imperative that the tribunal should be expert enough to maintain a semblance of balance between the parties. It is a serious matter if the tribunal is in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis one of the parties of the appeal.
This lack of expertise means, too, that the tribunal is unable to guarantee the claimant the procedural rights to which he is entitled. The flimsiest of evidence is acceptable, and proper opportunities for cross-examination are not provided.
I wish to refer to one set of proceedings in which I, as a representative, played a small part. The case turned on the question whether the applicant was in full-time or part-time work. We satisfied the tribunal initially that she was part-time by producing a copy of her contract of employment. It turned out later that the commission had decided to review the tribunal's decision. The only way in which we could discover the grounds on which the review had been made was by bringing a further appeal which we did. But to the very minute we sat before the tribunal we had no idea of the case which the applicant had to meet.
It turned out that the commission had received a letter from the woman's employers in which, incidentally, they had said that she was a full-time worker. On the basis of that evidence the commission reviewed the decision. The tribunal, because it lacked authority, expertise and knowledge of procedural safeguards was unable to protect the claimant against unfairness and against being confronted with a decision at the very last moment.
This not only illustrates the problem of procedural difficulties but also points up the bizarre nature of the commission's powers to review a decision, admittedly in specified circumstances. But the aggrieved applicant who is dissatisfied with a bad decision has no such option. He or she has no further recourse by way of ordinary appeal. Unlike the situation in regard to national insurance, there is not a second-tier appeal in matters involving supplementary benefit. The only course of action open to an aggrieved appellant is to bring an action in the High

Court for a prerogative order or declaratory judgment. It can he appreciated why so few applicants for supplementary benefit undertake that lengthy, arduous and expensive process. The situation which I have described is serious, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take it seriously.
It seems that potentially millions of people, including some of the poorest and most defenceless in our community, have their rights unnecessarily jeopardised by the defects which I have described. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to consider three suggestions for modest but important reforms.
First, the responsibility for appointing members of the tribunal should be taken from the Minister and placed in the hands of an independent department. The Lord Chancellor's Department might be appropriate. That Department would also have responsibility for the staffing of those tribunals.
Secondly, an independent body, possibly the Lord Chancellor's Department, should undertake the task of providing proper training for members of tribunals, who should be trained for the substantive and procedural problems which they are likely to encounter. If that is done properly it may be possible to dispense with the requirement that chairmen should be legally qualified, despite the recommendation of the Franks Committee to the contrary.
Thirdly, a second-tier appeal system should be provided on the national insurance model. That would have a number of advantages. It would provide effective redress against notoriously bad decisions. Since there would be an appeal to a full-time professional expert body, there would be an opportunity, through reporting and precedent-setting, to establish some consistency across the board and to provide some guidance to tribunals, so that standards could be raised.
It is only if those suggestions are pursued that claimants will have available to them the independent, impartial and effective appeal system which the supplementary benefits handbook proclaims and which justice demands.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the


Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on having chosen this topic for an Adjournment debate, Secondly, I express my gratitude both to my hon. Friend and to the Minister for allowing me a few minutes in which to speak.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the report of the Lord Chancellor's working party which suggested that legal aid should be available to claimants appearing before the supplementary benefit appeal tribunal. I do not think that that is the best way in which to make legal aid available to appellants, since, on purely cost benefit terms, the same result can be achieved more easily and efficiently by developing neighbourhood legal advice centres. However, the clear point emerges that more legal expertise will be available to claimants before the appeal tribunal.
Many consequences will flow from that situation. First, if claimants are legally represented, the legal representative will not tolerate a situation in which so many decisions of the tribunal depend on a secret code—the A Code—which is so secret that it is not available to the members of the tribunal, nor to the claimant nor to his representative, nor to Members of Parliament, since permission to deposit a copy in our Library has been refused.
If there is legal representation in the tribunals a consistent law of precedent will have to be established so that decisions taken in one part of the United Kingdom are applied in other parts, instead of the present situation in which a large number of tribunals in different parts of the country vary their discretion and interpretation of the A Code.
Tribunals will have to evolve a clear, consistent and coherent system of onus of proof. From tribunals' decisions it is clear that members of tribunals have no clear concept of the doctrine of the onus of proof. Often, when a claimant appeals against a decision based on the cohabitation rule, the onus of proof is placed on the claimant, whereas it should be placed upon the presenting officer. If there is legal representation at the tribunals, this mundane, informal, inefficient and rather amateurish approach to the situation cannot survive. We must look at the situa-

tion in advance of the advent of legal representation.
The second matter which I wish to emphasise to my hon. Friend is the independence of the appeal tribunal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, this independence is subject to two very important qualifications. The first relates to the appointment of members. About two-thirds of the members of tribunals are appointed by the Department of Health and Social Security, which is a little odd, since the tribunals are supposed to be considering appeals against decisions taken by employees of the Department. The remaining one-third are nominated by the trade unions, but there is some suspicion—since the turnover of this third is much higher than that of the other two-thirds—that they have less continuity and are less often represented at meetings of tribunals.
The second qualification relates to the clerks to tribunals. The clerk to a tribunal is appointed by the Department. What is more, generally he is a man who until recently himself was a presenting officer and can confidently expect promotion in the structure of the Department. Such a position does not breed confidence in the independent judgment and independent advice of the clerk to a tribunal.
Just before the last recess, I was fortunate enough to attend a conference on this subject organised by the University of Edinburgh. It was extremely informative and stimulating. The one clear message from that conference was that a large number of young, enthusiastic people were keen to see the present situation and were not prepared to tolerate its survival for much longer.
The present structure of the appeal tribunals and their mode of operation will have to be changed in the very near future. The only question remaining is whether it is changed now, with the initiative coming from the Ministry, or whether we delay for a year or two and then put ourselves in the much more ignominious position of having to make changes under the pressure of opinion from interested, active organisations and under the threat of exposure in the media.

11.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): I am very pleased that my hon.


Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) chose to raise this matter on the Adjournment, but I assure him that he did not need to draw my attention to the report, because he will be aware that it has been well received and is now in process of being digested by my Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) knows that I wish I could have been present at the Edinburgh conference to which he referred. However, its organisers have been kind enough to send me all the documentary evidence of the discussions which took place there.
I was pleased to agree to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central making a short intervention. On occasions such as this, it is more important to receive the views of hon. Members than to provide a departmental answer.
I want to reverse the order in which I had intended originally to reply to the debate, and to deal first with the action which my Department has taken to meet the criticisms made tonight and others made over a long period of time by hon. Members and by people outside this House.
In 1973, the Department of Health and Social Security asked Professor Kathleen Bell, of Newcastle University—herself a member of the Council on Tribunals—to undertake a comprehensive study of the working of the supplementary benefit tribunals.
At this juncture, it is well to mention that the article on appeal tribunals which appeared in The Guardian today and which caused me some personal concern referred not to the study which we asked Professor Bell to undertake but to an earlier study by her of national insurance local tribunals, which she completed before the beginning of the present study. I say that because, inadvertently, the Press may have misinterpreted the situation.
The report we are awaiting on the work of the supplementary benefit appeal tribunal is expected fairly soon and will be considered along with other suggestions by the Lord Chancellor's Office, the Council on Tribunals and the Department. Meantime, at the request of the council, officials of the Lord Chancellor's

Office, and the Department have been considering the training of chairmen. The council has issued guidance on the giving of reasons for decisions and alterations have been made in the duties of the tribunal clerk. The question of making legal aid available for representation in tribunals generally is currently under consideration by the Lord Chancellor.
We all begin on the assumption, which we know to be true as constituency Members, that supplementary benefit claimants are, by definition, among the poorest in our society. They are among that group not from choice but usually from force of circumstances. They include the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the one-parent families—a wide range of people in genuine need. As long as these people feel that they are not being fairly dealt with, even though they may be mistaken, it is right for us to provide an impartial, fair and humane appeals procedure.
That is why the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 set up these appeal tribunals. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. I am sure he will agree that there is no difference in objective between what the Government and any hon. Member seek to achieve. Whether it is a Minister or a back-bench Member, whether a member of the Supplementary Benefits Commission or an advocate of the Child Poverty Action Group, whether a member of a staff-providing Department or a member of the Claimants' Union, there is one common aim.
We seek justice for the claimant. I use the words of the title of the pamphlet to show that this is more than just a title. It must be the purpose behind all our efforts. If I cannot deal with all the points raised by my hon. Friends I will write to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, spoke of tribunal premises. As a constituency Member, I have had some difficulty on this subject. At present, eight tribunals are being held in DHSS premises, 22 in other official premises and 90 in non-official premises. While there may be regional variations the national picture suggests we are moving towards establishing the degree of impartiality which is so important.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of the clerk. The functions and


status of the tribunal clerk is a thorny subject which has been exercising the Council on Tribunals for some time. Indeed, we recently made interim changes at its request. Its further consideration will have to await Professor Bell's report as the problem is closely linked with matters such as a presidential system referred to in the CPAG document, and the training and qualifications of tribunal chairmen.
My hon. Friend emphasised the need for training. All hon. Members agree that there is a need for more and better training of chairmen. The Council on Tribunals has already asked officials of the Lord Chancellor's Office and DHSS to look into the matter. The Lord Chancellor's Office proposes to invite a number of chairmen to arrange area meetings of their colleagues, to be attended by a legally-qualified chairman of a supplementary benefit appeal tribunal, who is also a Recorder.
At each meeting this chairman would promote discussion of the work and of the criticisms levelled at the tribunals, give those present the benefit of his wide legal experience as applied to this particular jurisdiction, and in a report to the Lord Chancellor review the present position of the tribunals and the problems encountered by chairmen, and make recommendations.
My hon. Friend also linked the question of training with the rules of procedure. There already are appeal tribunal rules made by the Secretary of State. Those rules are made after consultation with the Council on Tribunals and they cover such matters as the time and manner of bringing appeals, the time and place of hearings, the rights of attendance and representation, and a whole variety of subjects. However, they do not cover every contingency, because it would not be proper for the Department to tell chairmen how to run their independent tribunals. If we value independence, over action by the Department might run counter to the need for independence.
Reference has been made to the right of further appeal. The Franks Report, when speaking of national assistance appeal tribunals, the predecessors of the

supplementary benefit appeal tribunals, concluded.
because by their very nature questions of assistance require to be finally determined as quickly as possible, we do not think that the provision of a further appeal on merits from the Tribunals is appropriate.
However, the Fisher Committee on Abuse of Social Security Benefits thought that in cohabitation appeals there should be a right of appeal on questions of law. Obviously there are quite considerable difficulties in the way of singling out one area of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme for such treatment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to appointments to and independence of tribunals. I assure him that my Department would certainly not be averse to losing its responsibility for appointing both chairmen and members. But it is important to point out that the chairmen are usually appointed from among existing members. In the main, chairmen are selected from members who have gathered some experience in this sphere.
My hon. Friend also referred to legal aid. In a Parliamentary Answer on 6th February the Lord Chancellor indicated that, whilst he has considerable sympathy with this aspect, there is a question of priority concerning the provision of legal aid. I refer my hon. Friend, because of the time only, to that answer on 6th February. However, looking at the statistics of the success rate, if that be a measure of the efficiency of the system, in percentage terms appellants represented by social workers did far better than those who were represented by members of the legal profession. I do not mean that as any slight upon members of the legal profession. There is no real evidence that legal representation is the crux of the matter when dealing with appeals.
By the very nature of things, when an adjudicating body is dealing with the subsistence needs of people, it is inevitable that it will come in for criticism, no matter what its structure or type of membership. I am sure that it is the wish of all of us that these tribunals shall carry out their duties as efficiently and humanely as possible. This is what we propose to try to bring about.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned

the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three minutes past Twelve o'clock.